Implant Overhang after Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Oxford Prosthesis versus Miller-Galante II Prosthesis
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Purpose: The purpose of the present study is to compare the prevalence of implant overhang between the Oxford and the Miller-Galante II (M-G II) unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) prostheses and determine whether overhang is associated with postoperative clinical results. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed one hundred and seven UKAs which consisted of 37 Oxford UKAs and 70 M-G II. Overhang was considered present if ≥3 mm overhang was observed in any zone. The range of motion, the Knee Society scores and the Western Ontario and McMaster scores were compared after a mean follow-up duration of 48 months. Results: Thirty three of 107 knees (30.8%) had overhang in at least one zone of the femoral or tibial component. In the tibial side, there were no significant differences between the groups in component overhang in each zone. In the femoral side, the Oxford UKA group showed a significantly higher prevalence of the posterior overhang of the femoral component (19/37, 51.4%) than did the M-G II UKA group (3/70, 4.3%; p< 0.001). However, no significant differences in clinical results were observed between the two groups. There were also no significant differences in clinical results between the overhang and the non-overhang groups. Conclusions: Posterior overhang of the femoral component was highly prevalent in Oxford UKA patients. However, posterior overhang of the femoral component had no significant relationship with postoperative clinical results in both Oxford and M-G II UKAs at a mean of 48 months follow-up.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of the present study is to compare the prevalence of implant overhang between the Oxford and the Miller-Galante II (M-G II) unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) prostheses and determine whether overhang is associated with postoperative clinical results. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed one hundred and seven UKAs which consisted of 37 Oxford UKAs and 70 M-G II. Overhang was considered present if ≥3 mm overhang was observed in any zone. The range of motion, the Knee Society scores and the Western Ontario and McMaster scores were compared after a mean follow-up duration of 48 months. Results: Thirty three of 107 knees (30.8%) had overhang in at least one zone of the femoral or tibial component. In the tibial side, there were no significant differences between the groups in component overhang in each zone. In the femoral side, the Oxford UKA group showed a significantly higher prevalence of the posterior overhang of the femoral component (19/37, 51.4%) than did the M-G II UKA group (3/70, 4.3%; p< 0.001). However, no significant differences in clinical results were observed between the two groups. There were also no significant differences in clinical results between the overhang and the non-overhang groups. Conclusions: Posterior overhang of the femoral component was highly prevalent in Oxford UKA patients. However, posterior overhang of the femoral component had no significant relationship with postoperative clinical results in both Oxford and M-G II UKAs at a mean of 48 months follow-up.
참고문헌 (20)
- Naudie D, "Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with the Miller-Galante prosthesis", J Bone Joint Surg Am, 86, pp.1931~1935 (2004)
- Price AJ, "A second decade lifetable survival analysis of the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty", Clin Orthop Relat Res, 469, pp.174~179 (2011)
- Robertsson O, "The routine of surgical management reduces failure after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty", J Bone Joint Surg Br, 83, pp.45~49 (2001)
- Hitt K, "Anthropometric measurements of the human knee: correlation to the sizing of current knee arthroplasty systems", J Bone Joint Surg Am, 85(4), pp.115~122 (2003)
- Berger RA, "Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty : indications, techniques, and results", Instr Course Lect, 59, pp.47~56 (2010)
- Chau R, "Tibial component overhang following unicompartmental knee replacement: does it matter?", Knee, 16, pp.310~313 (2009)
- Clarius M, "Correlation of positioning and clinical results in Oxford UKA", Int Orthop, 34, pp.1145~1151 (2010)
- Mahoney OM, "Overhang of the femoral component in total knee arthroplasty : risk factors and clinical consequences", J Bone Joint Surg Am, 92, pp.1115~1121 (2010)
- Bonnin MP, "Mediolateral oversizing influences pain, function, and flexion after TKA", Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 21, pp.2314~2324 (2013)
- Borus T, "Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty", J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 16, pp.9~18 (2008)
- Edmondson MC, "Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty : medial pain and functional outcome in the medium term", J Orthop Surg Res, 6, pp.52~ (2011)
- Scott RD, "Unicondylar unicompartmental replacement for osteoarthritis of the knee", J Bone Joint Surg Am, 63, pp.536~544 (1981)
- Kozinn SC, "Unicondylar knee arthroplasty", J Bone Joint Surg Am, 71, pp.145~150 (1989)
- Kim JG, "The radiological parameters correlated with the alignment of the femoral component after Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee replacement", J Bone Joint Surg Br, 94, pp.1499~1505 (2012)
- Insall JN, "Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system", Clin Orthop Relat Res, 248, pp.13~14 (1989)
- Bellamy N, "Validation study of WOMAC : a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee", J Rheumatol, 15, pp.1833~1840 (1988)
- Gudena R, "A safe overhang limit for unicompartmental knee arthroplasties based on medial collateral ligament strains : an in vitro study", J Arthroplasty, 28, pp.227~233 (2013)
- Bothra V, "Reliability of templating in estimating the size of uni-condylar knee arthroplasty", J Arthroplasty, 18, pp.780~783 (2003)
- Whiteside LA, "Making your next unicompartmental knee arthroplasty last: three keys to success", J Arthroplasty, 20(4 Suppl 2), pp.2~3 (2005)
- Fawzy E, "Determination of femoral component size in unicompartmental knee replacement", Knee, 15, pp.403~406 (2008)