nach oben

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

Erschienen in:

25.02.2021 | Knee Arthroplasty

Revision indications for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

verfasst von: Mei Lin Tay, Sue R. McGlashan, A. Paul Monk, Simon W. Young

Erschienen in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery | Ausgabe 2/2022

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Introduction

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has advantages over total knee arthroplasty including fewer complications and faster recovery; however, UKAs also have higher revision rates. Understanding reasons for UKA failure may, therefore, allow for optimized clinical outcomes. We aimed to identify failure modes for medial UKAs, and to examine differences by implant bearing, cement use and time.

Materials and methods

A systematic review was conducted by searching MedLine, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane databases from 2000 to 2020. Studies were selected if they included ≥ 250 participants, ≥ 10 failures and reported all failure modes of medial UKA performed for osteoarthritis (OA).

Results

A total of 24 cohort and 2 registry-based studies (levels II and III) were selected. The most common failure modes were aseptic loosening (24%) and OA progression (30%). Earliest failures (< 6 months) were due to infection (40%), bearing dislocation (20%), and fracture (20%); mid-term failures (> 2 years to 5 years) were due to OA progression (33%), aseptic loosening (17%) and pain (21%); and late-term (> 10 years) failures were mostly due to OA progression (56%). Rates of failure from wear were higher with fixed-bearing prostheses (5% cf. 0.3%), whereas rates of bearing dislocations were higher with mobile-bearing prostheses (14% cf. 0%). With cemented components, there was a high rate of failure due to aseptic loosening (27%), which was reduced with uncemented components (4%).

Conclusions

UKA failure modes differ depending on implant design, cement use and time from surgery. There should be careful consideration of implant options and patient selection for UKA.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Bhandari M, Smith J, Miller LE, Block JE (2012) Clinical and economic burden of revision knee arthroplasty. Clin Med Insights Arthritis MusculoskeletDisord 5:89–94. https://doi.org/10.4137/CMAMD.S10859CrossRef

Turkiewicz A, Petersson IF, Björk J et al (2014) Current and future impact of osteoarthritis on health care: a population-based study with projections to year 2032. OsteoarthrCartil 22:1826–1832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2014.07.015CrossRef

Ackerman IN, Bohensky MA, Zomer E et al (2019) The projected burden of primary total knee and hip replacement for osteoarthritis in Australia to the year 2030. BMC MusculoskeletDisord 20:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-019-2411-9CrossRef

Wilson R, Abbott H (2019) The projected burden of knee osteoarthritis in New Zealand: healthcare expenditure and total joint provision—a response. N Z Med J 132:53–65PubMed

Liddle AD, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray DW (2015) Patient-reported outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study of 14,076 matched patients from the national joint registry for EngLand and Wales. Bone Jt J 97-B:793–801. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B6.35155CrossRef

Carr AJ, Robertsson O, Graves S et al (2012) Knee replacement. Lancet 379:1331–1340. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60752-6CrossRefPubMed

Ethgen O, Bruyerè O, Richy F et al (2004) Health-related quality of life in total hip and total knee arthroplasty: a qualitative and systematic review of the literature. J Bone JtSurgSer A 86:963–974. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200405000-00012CrossRef

Goodfellow J, O’Connor J, Pandit H et al (2011) Unicompartmentalarthroplasty with the Oxford knee, 2nd edn. Goodfellow Publishers Ltd, Woodeaton

Willis-Owen CA, Brust K, Alsop H et al (2009) Unicondylar knee arthroplasty in the UK National Health Service: an analysis of candidacy, outcome and cost efficacy. Knee 16:473–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2009.04.006CrossRefPubMed

10.

American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (2019) American joint replacement registry (AJRR): 2019 annual report. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Rosemont

11.

Australian Orthopaedic Association (2019) Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). Hip, knee and shoulder arthroplasty: 2019 Annual report. Australian Orthopaedic Association, Adelaide

12.

National Joint Registry (2019) National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man: 16th Annual Report 2019. National Joint Registry, Hemel Hempstead

13.

New Zealand Orthopaedic Association (2018) The New Zealand Joint Registry twenty year report January 1999 to December 2018. New Zealand Orthopaedic Association, Christchurch

14.

Liddle AD, Judge A, Pandit H, Murray DW (2014) Adverse outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee replacement in 101330 matched patients: a study of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet 384:1437–1445. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60419-0CrossRefPubMed

15.

Longo UG, Loppini M, Trovato U et al (2015) No difference between unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty for the management of medial osteoarthtritis of the knee in the same patient : a systematic review and pooling data analysis. Br Med Bull. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldv009CrossRefPubMed

16.

Wilson HA, Middleton R, Abram SGF et al (2019) Patient relevant outcomes of unicompartmental versus total knee replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 364:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l352CrossRef

17.

Zuiderbaan HA, van der List JP, Khamaisy S et al (2017) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty: Which type of artificial joint do patients forget? Knee Surg Sport TraumatolArthrosc 25:681–686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3868-1CrossRef

18.

Liddle AD, Judge A, Pandit H, Murray DW (2014) Determinants of revision and functional outcome following unicompartmental knee replacement. OsteoarthrCartil 22:1241–1250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2014.07.006CrossRef

19.

Han SB, Song SY, Shim JH, Shin YS (2020) Risk of a complete exchange or failure in total knee arthroplasty and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a nationwide population-based cohort study from South Korea. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03675-1CrossRefPubMed

20.

Furnes O, Espehaug B, Lie SA et al (2007) Failure mechanisms after unicompartmental and tricompartmental primary knee replacement with cement. J Bone JtSurgSer A 89:519–525. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00210CrossRef

21.

Schraknepper J, Dimitriou D, Helmy N et al (2020) Influence of patient selection, component positioning and surgeon’s caseload on the outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 140:807–813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03413-7CrossRefPubMed

22.

Fiocchi A, Condello V, Madonna V et al (2017) Medial vs lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: clinical results. Acta Biomed 88:38–44. https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v88i2CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

van der List JP, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD (2016) Why do lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasties fail today? Am J Orthop 45:432–462PubMed

24.

van Der List JP, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD (2016) Why do medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties fail today? J Arthroplasty 31:1016–1021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.11.030CrossRefPubMed

25.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2010) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 8:336–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007CrossRefPubMed

26.

OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group (2011) The Oxford levels of evidence 2. In: Oxford Cent. Evidence-Based Med. https://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653

27.

Brazzelli M, Cruickshank M, Tassie E et al (2015) Collagenase clostridium histolyticum for the treatment of dupuytren’s contracture: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess (Rockv) 19:1–201. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta19900CrossRef

28.

Ackroyd CE, Whitehouse SL, Newman JH, Joslin CC (2002) A comparative study of the medial St Georg Sled and Kinematic total knee arthroplasties. J Bone JtSurgSer B 84:667–672. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.84B5.12404CrossRef

29.

Akan B, Karaguven D, Guclu B et al (2013) Cemented versus uncemented Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Is there a difference? AdvOrthop 2013:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/245915CrossRef

30.

Kuipers BM, Kollen BJ, Kaijser Bots PC et al (2010) Factors associated with reduced early survival in the Oxford phase III medial unicompartment knee replacement. Knee 17:48–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2009.07.005CrossRefPubMed

31.

Liebs TR, Herzberg W (2013) Better quality of life after medial versus lateral unicondylar knee arthroplasty knee. ClinOrthopRelat Res 471:2629–2640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-2966-yCrossRef

32.

Lim JWA, Chen JY, Chong HC et al (2019) Pre-existing patellofemoral disease does not affect 10-year survivorship in fixed bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sport TraumatolArthrosc 27:2030–2036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-5169-yCrossRef

33.

Lum ZC, Crawford DA, Lombardi AV et al (2018) Early comparative outcomes of unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty in severely obese patients. Knee 25:161–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2017.10.006CrossRefPubMed

34.

Lyons MC, MacDonald SJ, Somerville LE et al (2012) Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty database analysis. ClinOrthopRelat Res 470:84–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-2144-zCrossRef

35.

Mohammad HR, Kennedy JA, Mellon SJ et al (2020) Ten-year clinical and radiographic results of 1000 cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacements. Knee Surg Sport TraumatolArthrosc 28:1479–1487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05544-wCrossRef

36.

Pandit H, Hamilton TW, Jenkins C et al (2015) The clinical outcome of minimally invasive Phase 3 Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 97B:1493–1500. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B11.35634CrossRef

37.

Price AJ, Svard U (2011) A second decade lifetable survival analysis of the oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. ClinOrthopRelat Res 469:174–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1506-2CrossRef

38.

Ridgeway SR, McAuley JP, Ammeen DJ, Engh GA (2002) The effect of alignment of the knee on the outcome of unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint SurgSer B 84:351–355. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.84B3.12046CrossRef

39.

Robb CA, Matharu GS, Baloch K, Pynsent PB (2013) Revision surgery for failed unicompartmental knee replacement : technical aspects and clinical outcome. ActaOrthopBelg 79:312–317

40.

Alnachoukati OK, Barrington JW, Berend KR et al (2018) Eight hundred twenty-five medial mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasties: the first 10-year US multi-center survival analysis. J Arthroplasty 33:677–683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.10.015CrossRefPubMed

41.

Saxler G, Temmen D, Bontemps G (2004) Medium-term results of the AMC-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee 11:349–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2004.03.008CrossRefPubMed

42.

Sever GB, Cankus C (2019) The long-term results of cemented Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a single-center experience. Joint Dis RelatSurg 30:233–240. https://doi.org/10.5606/ehc.2019.66429CrossRef

43.

Winnock de Grave P, Barbier J, Luyckx T et al (2018) Outcomes of a fixed-bearing, medial, cemented unicondylar knee arthroplasty design: survival analysis and functional score of 460 cases. J Arthroplasty 33:2792–2799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.04.031CrossRefPubMed

44.

Xue H, Tu Y, Ma T et al (2017) Up to twelve year follow-up of the Oxford phase three unicompartmental knee replacement in China: seven hundred and eight knees from an independent centre. IntOrthop 41:1571–1577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3492-4CrossRef

45.

Burger JA, Kleeblad LJ, Laas N, Pearle AD (2020) Mid-term survivorship and patient-reported outcomes of robotic-arm assisted partial knee arthroplasty: a single-surgeon study of 1018 knees. Bone Joint J 102:108–116. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.102B1.BJJ-2019-0510.R1CrossRefPubMed

46.

Burnett RSJ, Nair R, Hall CA et al (2014) Results of the Oxford Phase 3 mobile bearing medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty from an independent center: 467 knees at a mean 6-year follow-up: analysis of predictors of failure R. J Arthroplasty 29:193–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.01.035CrossRefPubMed

47.

Campi S, Pandit HG, Oosthuizen CR (2018) The Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: the South African experience. J Arthroplasty 33:1727–1731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.01.035CrossRefPubMed

48.

Clark M, Campbell DG, Kiss G et al (2010) Reintervention after mobile-bearing oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. ClinOrthopRelat Res 468:576–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-1089-yCrossRef

49.

Edmondson M, Atrey A, East D et al (2015) Survival analysis and functional outcome of the Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement up to 11 years follow up at a District General Hospital. J Orthop 12:S105–S110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2013.12.007CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

50.

Hamilton WG, Ammeen DJ, Hopper RH (2014) Mid-Term survivorship of minimally invasive unicompartmentalarthroplasty with a fixed-bearing implant: revision rate and mechanisms of failure. J Arthroplasty 29:989–992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.10.010CrossRefPubMed

51.

Kristensen PW, Holm HA, Varnum C (2013) Up to 10-year follow-up of the Oxford medial partial knee arthroplasty - 695 cases from a single institution. J Arthroplasty 28:195–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.05.010CrossRefPubMed

52.

Baker PN, Jameson SS, Deehan DJ et al (2012) Mid-term equivalent survival of medial and lateral unicondylar knee replacement: an analysis of data from a National Joint Registry. J Bone Jt Surg Ser B 94 B:1641–1648. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.94B12.29416CrossRef

53.

Mohammad HR, Matharu GS, Judge A, Murray DW (2020) New surgical instrumentation reduces the revision rate of unicompartmental knee replacement: a propensity score matched comparison of 15,906 knees from the National Joint Registry. Knee 27:993–1002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2020.02.008CrossRefPubMed

54.

Bruni D, Iacono F, Raspugli G et al (2012) Isunicompartmentalarthroplasty an acceptable option for spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee? ClinOrthopRelat Res 470:1442–1451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2246-2CrossRef

55.

Choy WS, Kim KJ, Lee SK et al (2011) Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients with spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee. ClinOrthopSurg 3:279–284. https://doi.org/10.4055/cios.2011.3.4.279CrossRef

56.

Greco NJ, Lombardi AV, Hurst JM et al (2019) Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for the treatment of focal femoral osteonecrosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 101:1077–1084. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.18.00913CrossRefPubMed

57.

Kaneko T, Kono N, Sunakawa T et al (2019) Reliable patient-reported outcome measure and survivorship of UKA for primary spontaneous osteonecrosis. Eur J OrthopSurgTraumatol 29:119–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-018-2296-6CrossRef

58.

Ma T, Tu Y, Xue H et al (2017) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for spontaneous osteonecrosis. J OrthopSurg 25:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/2309499017690328CrossRef

59.

Ollivier M, Jacquet C, Lucet A et al (2019) Long-term results of medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for knee avascular necrosis. J Arthroplasty 34:465–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.11.010CrossRefPubMed

60.

Servien E, Verdonk PCM, Lustig S et al (2008) Medial unicompartimental knee arthroplasty for osteonecrosis or osteoarthritis. Knee Surg Sport TraumatolArthrosc 16:1038–1042. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-008-0617-8CrossRef

61.

Zhang Q, Guo W, Liu Z et al (2015) Minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in treatment of osteonecrosisversus osteoarthritis: a matched-pair comparison. ActaOrthopBelg 81:333–339

62.

Bruce DJ, Hassaballa M, Robinson JR et al (2020) Minimum 10-year outcomes of a fixed bearing all-polyethylene unicompartmental knee arthroplasty used to treat medial osteoarthritis. Knee 27:1018–1027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2020.02.018CrossRefPubMed

63.

Emerson RH, Hansborough T, Reitman RD et al (2002) Comparison of a mobile with a fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee implant. ClinOrthopRelat Res. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200211000-00011CrossRef

64.

Scott CEH, Wade FA, MacDonald D, Nutton RW (2018) Ten-year survival and patient-reported outcomes of a medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty incorporating an all-polyethylene tibial component. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138:719–729. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-018-2908-yCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

65.

Kerens B, Schotanus MGM, Boonen B et al (2017) Cementless versus cemented Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: early results of a non-designer user group. Knee Surg Sport TraumatolArthrosc 25:703–709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4149-3CrossRef

66.

Lisowski LA, Meijer LI, Van Den Bekerom MPJ et al (2016) Ten- to 15-year results of the Oxford Phase III mobile unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective study from a non-designer group. Bone Jt J 98 B:41–47. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B10.BJJ-2016-0474.R1CrossRef

67.

Middleton SWF, Schranz PJ, Mandalia VI, Toms AD (2018) The largest survivorship and clinical outcomes study of the fixed bearing Stryker Triathlon Partial Knee Replacement—a multi-surgeon, single centre cohort study with a minimum of two years of follow-up. Knee 25:732–736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2018.04.002CrossRefPubMed

68.

O’Donnell T, Neil MJ (2010) The Repicci II® unicondylar knee arthroplasty: 9-year survivorship and function. ClinOrthopRelat Res 468:3094–3102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1474-6CrossRef

69.

O’Rourke MR, Gardner JJ, Callaghan JJ et al (2005) Unicompartmental Knee replacement: a minimum twenty-one-year followup, end-result study. ClinOrthopRelat Res. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000185451.96987.aaCrossRef

70.

Polat AE, Polat B, Gürplnar T et al (2019) The effect of morbid obesity (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m²) on functional outcome and complication rate following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a case-control study. J OrthopSurg Res 14:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-019-1316-5CrossRef

71.

Vorlat P, Putzeys G, Cottenie D et al (2006) The Oxford unicompartmental knee prosthesis: an independent 10-year survival analysis. Knee Surg Sport TraumatolArthrosc 14:40–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-005-0621-1CrossRef

72.

Walker T, Hetto P, Bruckner T et al (2019) Minimally invasive Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty ensures excellent functional outcome and high survivorship in the long term. Knee Surg Sport TraumatolArthrosc 27:1658–1664. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-5299-2CrossRef

73.

Chatellard R, Sauleau V, Colmar M et al (2013) Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Does tibial component position influence clinical outcomes and arthroplasty survival? OrthopTraumatolSurg Res 99:S219–S225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2013.03.004CrossRef

74.

Kennedy JA, Molloy J, Jenkins C et al (2019) Functional outcome and revision rate are independent of limb alignment following oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg 101:270–275. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.18.00497CrossRefPubMed

75.

Klasan A, Carter M, Holland S, Young SW (2020) Low femoral component prominence negatively influences early revision rate in robotic unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sport TraumatolArthrosc 28:3906–3911. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-05886-wCrossRef

76.

Evans JT, Walker RW, Evans JP et al (2019) How long does a knee replacement last? A systematic review and meta-analysis of case series and national registry reports with more than 15 years of follow-up. Lancet 393:655–663. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(18)32531-5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

77.

Zhu M, Ravi S, Frampton C et al (2016) New Zealand Joint Registry data underestimates the rate of prosthetic joint infection. ActaOrthop 87:346–350. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2016.1171639CrossRef

78.

Sabah SA, Henckel J, Koutsouris S et al (2016) Are all metal-on-metal hip revision operations contributing to the National Joint Registry implant survival curves? Bone Joint J 98B:33–39. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B1.36431CrossRef

79.

Tuukka TN (2015) The reasons for knee arthroplasty revisions are incomparable in the different arthroplasty registries. Knee 22:142–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2014.12.007CrossRef

80.

Mutijima E, De Maertelaer V, Deprez M et al (2014) The apoptosis of osteoblasts and osteocytes in femoral head osteonecrosis: its specificity and its distribution. ClinRheumatol 33:1791–1795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-014-2607-1CrossRef

81.

Gangji V, Hauzeur JP, Schoutens A et al (2003) Abnormalities in the replicative capacity of osteoblastic cells in the proximal femur of patients with osteonecrosis of the femoral head. J Rheumatol 30:348–351PubMed

82.

Kagan R, Anderson MB, Bailey T et al (2020) Ten-year survivorship, patient-reported outcomes, and satisfaction of a fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Arthroplast Today 6:267–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2020.02.016CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

83.

Cao ZW, Niu CL, Gong CZ et al (2019) Comparison of fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 34:3114-3123.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.07.005CrossRefPubMed

84.

Liddle AD, Pandit H, O’Brien S et al (2013) Cementless fixation in Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement: a multicentre study of 1000 knees. J Bone Joint Surg Ser B 95 B:181–187. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.95B2.30411CrossRef

85.

Gulati A, Chau R, Pandit HG et al (2009) The incidence of physiological radiolucency following Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement and its relationship to outcome. J Bone JtSurgSer B 91:896–902. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.91B7.21914CrossRef

86.

Gupta V, Kejriwal R, Frampton C (2020) Revision Following cemented and uncemented oxford-iii primary medial unicompartmental knee replacements: a 19-year analysis from the New Zealand Joint Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Am 102:1777–1783. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.19.01443CrossRefPubMed

87.

Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (2016) Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) report 2016. Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association, Bergen

88.

Liow MHL, Goh GS, Pang HN et al (2020) Should patients aged 75 years or older undergo medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty? A propensity score-matched study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 140:949–956. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03440-4CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Revision indications for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review
verfasst von: Mei Lin Tay
Sue R. McGlashan
A. Paul Monk
Simon W. Young
Publikationsdatum: 25.02.2021
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery / Ausgabe 2/2022
Print ISSN: 0936-8051
Elektronische ISSN: 1434-3916
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-03827-x

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Revision indications for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

TEP mit Roboterhilfe führt nicht zu größerer Zufriedenheit

Lever-Sign-Test hilft beim Verdacht auf Kreuzbandriss

Ein Drittel der jungen Ärztinnen und Ärzte erwägt abzuwandern

Aquatherapie bei Fibromyalgie wirksamer als Trockenübungen

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2022

Third-generation intramedullary nailing for displaced proximal humeral fractures in the elderly: quality of life, clinical results, and complications

Risk factors for postoperative coronal decompensation in adult lumbar scoliosis after posterior correction with osteotomy

Antibiotic prophylaxis as a quality of care indicator: does it help in the fight against surgical site infections following fragility hip fractures?

Comparison between freehand technique and computed tomography-based navigation in acetabular cup placement through direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty

Is bipolar hemiarthroplasty an appropriate type of hip articulation following proximal femoral or total femoral resections for musculoskeletal malignancies?

One-year follow-up data from the German Cartilage Registry (KnorpelRegister DGOU) in the treatment of chondral and osteochondral defects of the talus

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

TEP mit Roboterhilfe führt nicht zu größerer Zufriedenheit

Lever-Sign-Test hilft beim Verdacht auf Kreuzbandriss

Ein Drittel der jungen Ärztinnen und Ärzte erwägt abzuwandern

Aquatherapie bei Fibromyalgie wirksamer als Trockenübungen

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie