Early Results of Oxford Mobile Bearing Medial Unicompartmental Knee Replacement (UKR) with the Microplasty Instrumentation: An Indian Experience | ||
| The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery | ||
| مقاله 9، دوره 6، شماره 4، مهر 2018، صفحه 301-311 اصل مقاله (2.3 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: RESEARCH PAPER | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22038/abjs.2018.28816.1743 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Sahil Gaba1؛ Naman Wahal1؛ Deepak Gautam1؛ Hemant Pandit2؛ Vijay Kumar1؛ Rajesh Malhotra* 1 | ||
| 1Department of Orthopaedics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, India | ||
| 2Orthopaedics and Honorary Consultant, Chapel Allerton Hospital, University of Leeds, UK | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Background: Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is indicated in patients with anteromedial osteoarthritis (AMOA) of the knee. Microplasty (MP) instrumentation was introduced in 2012 as an improvement over phase 3 instrumentation. Advantages of this instrumentation include conservative tibial cut, decreased tibial re-cut rate and improved component alignment. We report the results of UKR with the new instrumentation in a consecutive series with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Methods: A prospective study of 115 cemented medial Oxford UKRs implanted in 89 patients was done. Postoperative alignment of the tibial and femoral components was analysed. Patient reported outcome measures were recorded using Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and the American Knee Society Score (KSS). Tegner Activity Scale (TAS) was used to record the activity level. Results: 115 consecutive medial Oxford UKRs were studied. All patients were followed up annually in this prospective ethically approved study. The mean follow-up was 36 months and the minimum follow-up was 25 months. No patient died and none were lost to follow-up. At the final follow-up, the average OKS of the cohort was 39.5 (SD: 5.7). 91.2 % of the patients had good or excellent OKS with only 3.5 % reporting poor OKS. The overall limb alignment was 4.80 varus (0 – 140 varus). Tibia was recut in 5.2 % of cases. Median bearing size was 3 (range: 3 to 6). There was one case of bearing dislocation and one case of aseptic tibial loosening. Conclusion: This is the first study to report results of MP instrumentation at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Our study indicates that the new instrumentation results in reliable and accurate implantation of femoral and tibial components in majority of the cases, with a decrease in number of alignment outliers, and also a reduced rate of bearing dislocation. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| Anteromedial osteoarthritis (AMOA)؛ Microplasty instrumentation؛ Mobile bearing؛ Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
1. White SH, Ludkowski PF, Goodfellow JW. Anteromedial osteoarthritis of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991; 73(4):582-6. 2. Jackson WF, Berend KR, Spruijt S. 40 years of the Oxford knee. Bone Joint J. 2016; 98-B(10 Supple B):1-2. 3. Goodfellow JW, O’Connor J. Clinical results of the Oxford knee. Surface arthroplasty of the tibiofemoral joint with a meniscal bearing prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986; 205(1):21-42. 4. Price AJ, O’Connor JJ, Murray DW, Dodd CA, Goodfellow JW. A history of Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2007; 30(5 Suppl):7-10. 5. Hurst JM, Berend KR. Mobile-bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasty: the Oxford experience. Orthop Clin North Am. 2015; 46(1):113-24. 6. Price AJ, Svard U. A second decade lifetable survival analysis of the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011; 469(1):174-9. 7. Price AJ, Waite JC, Svard U. Long-term clinical results of the medial Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005; 435(1):171-80. 8. Pandit H, Hamilton TW, Jenkins C, Mellon SJ, Dodd CA, Murray DW. The clinical outcome of minimally invasive Phase 3 Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a 15-year follow-up of 1000 UKAs. Bone Joint J. 2015; 97-B(11):1493-500. 9. Berger RA, Meneghini RM, Jacobs JJ, Sheinkop MB, Della Valle CJ, Rosenberg AG, et al. Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum of ten years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87(5):999-1006. 10. Koh IJ, Kim JH, Jang SW, Kim MS, Kim C, In Y. Are the Oxford(®) medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty new instruments reducing the bearing dislocation risk while improving components relationships? A case control study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2016; 102(2):183-7. 11. Tu Y, Xue H, Ma T, Wen T, Yang T, Zhang H, et al. Superior femoral component alignment can be achieved with Oxford microplasty instrumentation after minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017; 25(3):729-35. 12. Walker T, Heinemann P, Bruckner T, Streit MR, Kinkel S, Gotterbarm T. The influence of different sets of surgical instrumentation in Oxford UKA on bearing size and component position. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017; 137(7):895-902. 13. Jang KM, Lim HC, Han SB, Jeong C, Kim SG, Bae JH. Does new instrumentation improve radiologic alignment of the Oxford® medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty? Knee. 2017; 24(3):641-50. 14. Hurst JM, Berend KR, Adams JB, Lombardi AV Jr. Radiographic comparison of mobile-bearing partial knee single-peg versus twin-peg design. J Arthroplasty. 2015; 30(3):475-8. 15. Inui H, Taketomi S, Yamagami R, Sanada T, Shirakawa N, Tanaka S. Impingement of the mobile bearing on the lateral wall of the tibial tray in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2016; 31(7):1459-64. 16. Mukherjee K, Pandit H, Dodd CA, Ostlere S, Murray DW. The Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a radiological perspective. Clin Radiol. 2008; 63(10):1169-76. 17. Gulati A, Chau R, Pandit HG, Gray H, Price AJ, Dodd CA, et al. The incidence of physiological radiolucency following Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement and its relationship to outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009; 91-B(7):896-902. 18. Price AJ, Webb J, Topf H, Dodd CA, Goodfellow JW, Murray DW. Rapid recovery after oxford unicompartmental arthroplasty through a short incision. J Arthroplasty. 2001; 16(8):970-6. 19. White SH, Roberts S, Jones PW. The twin peg Oxford partial knee replacement: the first 100 cases. Knee. 2012; 19(1):36-40. 20. White SH, Roberts S, Kuiper JH. The cemented twinpeg Oxford partial knee replacement survivorship: a cohort study. Knee. 2015; 22(4):333-7. 21. Goodfellow J, O’Connor J, Pandit H, Dodd C, Murray D. Unicompartmental arthroplasty with the Oxford knee. New York: Goodfellow Publishers Limited; 2011. 22. Pandit H, Jenkins C, Barker K, Dodd CA, Murray DW. The Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement using a minimally-invasive approach. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006; 88(1):54-60. 23. Panzram B, Bertlich I, Reiner T, Walker T, Hagmann S, Weber MA, et al. Results after cementless medial Oxford unicompartmental knee replacementincidence of radiolucent lines. PLoS One. 2017; 12(1):e0170324. 24. Pandit H, Jenkins C, Beard DJ, Gallagher J, Price AJ, Dodd CA, et al. Cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement shows reduced radiolucency at one year. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009; 91(2):185-9. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 715 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 573 |
||