Patient, Implant, and Alignment Factors Associated With Revision of Medial Compartment Unicondylar Arthroplasty
Section snippets
Methods
From a population of 295 unicondylar arthroplasties performed by one surgeon (author 5) as a primary reconstructive procedure for medial tibiofemoral compartment osteoarthritis between 1988 and 1997, we reviewed 245 knees that had received a fixed-bearing, metal-backed tibial component and a polyethylene bearing sterilized with gamma radiation in air. Seven designs from 4 manufacturers had been used: Robert Brigham (Johnson and Johnson Orthopaedics, Raynham, Mass) 2, 10, 11, 15, Single
Results
In this single-surgeon series of cemented metal-backed tibial components with gamma-irradiated-in-air polyethylene, 5 factors were significantly associated with revision (each P < .05 per Cox proportional hazards regression, Table 2): (younger) patient age at arthroplasty, (thinner) initial tibial component thickness, (longer) polyethylene insert shelf age, (lesser) operative reduction of the varus angle of the tibial plateau, and (increasing varus of the) postoperative hip-knee-ankle angle.
Discussion
Patient factors examined in our study included age, sex, and weight. In 2001, Robertson et al [3] reported on 12 282 unicondylar arthroplasties that were performed for osteoarthritis between 1988 and 1997 and entered into the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Registry. Cox proportional hazards regression showed that younger patient age at surgery was statistically associated with revision, whereas patient sex was not. This was also true in our study, which is similar in that it too featured
Acknowledgment
The investigators appreciate the assistance of the manufacturers in tracing product sterilization histories.
References (30)
- et al.
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a 4.5-6-year follow-up study with a metal-backed tibial component
J Arthroplasty
(1989) - et al.
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: 3- to 10-year results in a community hospital setting
J Arthroplasty
(2002) - et al.
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in middle-aged patients: a 2- to 6-year follow-up evaluation
J Arthroplasty
(1998) - et al.
Three-dimensional finite element analysis of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: the influence of tibial component inclination
J Orthop Res
(2005) - et al.
The introduction period of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is critical: a clinical, clinical multicentered, and radiostereometric study of 251 Duracon unicompartmental knee arthroplasties
J Arthroplasty
(2000) - et al.
Unicondylar knee arthroplasty
J Bone Joint Surg Am
(1989) - et al.
The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register 1975-1997: an update with special emphasis on 41,223 knees operated on in 1988-1997
Acta Orthop Scand
(2001) - et al.
Shelf age of the polyethylene tibial component and outcome of unicondylar knee arthroplasty
J Bone Joint Surg Am
(2004) - et al.
Revision of failed unicondylar unicompartmental knee arthroplasty
J Bone Joint Surg Am
(1987) Unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee with a minimum ten-year follow-up period
Clin Orthop Relat Res
(1988)
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a multicenter investigation with long-term follow-up evaluation
Clin Orthop Relat Res
The Modular (Marmor) knee: case report with a minimum follow-up of 2 years
Clin Orthop Relat Res
Duplication of medial erosion in unicompartmental knee arthroplasties
J Bone Joint Surg Br
Early catastrophic tibial component wear after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty
Clin Orthop Relat Res
Rapid polyethylene failure of unicondylar tibial components sterilized with gamma irradiation in air and implanted after a long shelf life
J Bone Joint Surg Am
Cited by (0)
Benefits or funds were received in partial or total support of the research material described in this article. Institutional research financial support has been received from Inova Health Systems (Falls Church, Va). Gerard A. Engh and James P. McAuley have received product royalties related to a contemporary unicondylar knee design from DePuy, a Johnson and Johnson Company (Warsaw, Ind).