Management of aseptic failure of the mobile-bearing Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

The Knee ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 1721-1728
Author(s):  
Shiraz A. Sabah ◽  
Chin Tat Lim ◽  
Robert Middleton ◽  
Lennart von Fritsch ◽  
Nicholas Bottomley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Mobile Bearing ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee ◽  
Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Aseptic Failure

scholarly journals Reintervention after Mobile-bearing Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

2009 ◽  
Vol 468 (2) ◽  
pp. 576-580 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcia Clark ◽  
David G. Campbell ◽  
Greg Kiss ◽  
Peter J. Dobson ◽  
Peter L. Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Mobile Bearing ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee ◽  
Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

Intraoperative mobile-bearing movement in Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (7) ◽  
pp. 2211-2217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kohei Kawaguchi ◽  
Hiroshi Inui ◽  
Shuji Taketomi ◽  
Ryota Yamagami ◽  
Keiu Nakazato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Mobile Bearing ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee ◽  
Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

scholarly journals Effects of a 1-mm Difference in Bearing Thickness on Intraoperative Bearing Movement and Kinematics in Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty 

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kohei Kawaguchi ◽  
Hiroshi Inui ◽  
Shuji Taketomi ◽  
Ryota Yamagami ◽  
Kenichi Kono ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Internal Rotation ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Knee Kinematics ◽  
Mobile Bearing ◽  
The Other ◽  
Tibial Internal Rotation ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee ◽  
Valgus Correction Angle ◽  
Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

Abstract Background: The choice of mobile bearing (MB) thickness is essential for obtaining successful results after mobile-bearing Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). This study aimed to investigate the effects of a 1-mm difference in bearing thickness on intraoperative MB movement and intraoperative knee kinematics in Oxford UKAs.Methods: We prospectively investigated the intraoperative MB movement and knee kinematics of 25 patients who underwent Oxford UKAs when surgeons didn’t know which bearing thickness to choose with 1-mm difference. A trial tibial component that was scaled every 2 mm was used to measure the intraoperative MB movement, and the tibial internal rotation relative to the femur and the knee varus angle was simultaneously evaluated using the navigation system as the knee kinematics. We separately evaluated sets of two MB thicknesses with 1-mm differences, and we compared the intraoperative parameters at maximum extension; 30º, 45º, 60º, and 90º flexion; and maximum flexion between the thicker MB (thick group) and the thinner MB (thin group).Results: The MB in the thin group was located significantly posteriorly at 90º flexion compared with that in the thick group; however, there were no differences at the other flexion angles. There was significantly less tibial internal rotation in the thin group at 90º flexion than that in the thick group; however, there were no differences at the other flexion angles. The knee varus angles in the thick group were significantly smaller than those in the thin group by approximately one degree at all angles other than at 30º and 45º flexion. Conclusion: The thicker MB could bring the less posterior MB movement and the more tibial internal rotation at 90º flexion, additionally the valgus correction angle in the thicker MB should be paid attention. These results could help surgeons to decide the thickness of MBs when they wonder the thickness of MB.

scholarly journals Complications, Reasons for Reoperation, and 5-Year Prosthesis Survival Compared Between the Cemented and Cementless Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Fixation Techniques at Thailand’s Largest National Tertiary Referral Center

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jirayu Paugchawee ◽  
Chaturong Pornrattanamaneewong ◽  
Pakpoom Ruangsomboon ◽  
Rapeepat Narkbunnam ◽  
Keerati Chareancholvanich
Keyword(s):  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Cox Proportional Hazards Model ◽  
Implant Survival ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee ◽  
Prosthesis Survival ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

Abstract Background: Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (OUKA) yields favorable outcomes in patients with medial compartmental knee osteoarthritis; however, it remains unknown whether cemented or cementless OUKA fixation delivers better outcomes in Asian population. Accordingly, this study aimed to investigate the complications, reasons for reoperation, and 5-year prosthesis survival compared between cemented and cementless OUKA in Thai patients.Methods: A total of 466 cemented and 36 cementless OUKA that were performed during 2011-2015 with a minimum follow-up of five years were included. With reoperation for any reason as the endpoint, Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to compare 5-year implant survival between groups. Complications, reasons for reoperation, and 90-day morbidity and mortality were compared between groups. Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify independent predictors of implant survival.Results: There was no significant difference in 5-year implant survival between the cemented and cementless groups (96.4% vs. 94.4%, p=0.375). The mean implant survival time was 113.0±0.8 and 70.8±1.9 months in the cemented and cementless groups, respectively (p=0.383). The most common reason for reoperation was bearing dislocation, and only one patient had 90-day morbidity. There was no significant difference between groups for complications or reasons for reoperation. No independent predictors of implant survival were identified in multivariate analysis.Conclusions: OUKA was shown to be a safe and durable reconstructive procedure in Thai patients with medial compartmental knee osteoarthritis. There was no significant difference in implant survival between the cemented and cementless groups during the 5-year follow-up, and no independent predictors of implant survival were identified. Trial registration: Thai Clinical Trials Registry, TCTR20200427004. Registered 27 April 2020 – Retrospectively registered.

scholarly journals Clinical Results of Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

2008 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 635-638
Author(s):  
Tetsuya Fukumoto ◽  
Kazutoshi Nomura ◽  
Noburo Hashimoto ◽  
Satoshi Maeda ◽  
Haruhiko Chuma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee ◽  
Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document