The Influence of Postoperative Tibiofemoral Alignment on the Clinical Results of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty
1
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Purpose: To evaluate the influence of postoperative tibiofemoral alignment on the clinical results and failure in patients who underwent unicompartmental knee athroplasty (UKA). Materials and Methods: We reviewed 246 cases of medial UKA which were followed up for at least 5 years after the operation. The clinical results were compared between 5 groups classified according to the tibiofemoral angle that was measured at 3 months after surgery. We analyzed the relationship between the tibiofemoral alignment and the failure after UKA. Results: The preoperative tibiofemoral angle was changed from 0.4^o of varus to 5.4^o of valgus after surgery and the average correction angle was 5.8^o. During the follow-up, which averaged 7 years and 5 months, the knee score and function score were improved significantly in all groups regardless of the tibiofemoral angle (p<0.01). There were no significant difference between the groups in the clinical results (p>0.05). However, there were significant differences in the cumulative survival rate of implants between the groups and the highest rate was found in the group with a tibiofemoral angle of 4^o to 6^o of valgus (p<0.01). Conclusions: The tibiofemoral angle after UKA had no significant influence on the midterm clinical scores, but there was a significant relationship between the postoperative tibiofemoral angle and failure rate of implant.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the influence of postoperative tibiofemoral alignment on the clinical results and failure in patients who underwent unicompartmental knee athroplasty (UKA). Materials and Methods: We reviewed 246 cases of medial UKA which were followed up for at least 5 years after the operation. The clinical results were compared between 5 groups classified according to the tibiofemoral angle that was measured at 3 months after surgery. We analyzed the relationship between the tibiofemoral alignment and the failure after UKA. Results: The preoperative tibiofemoral angle was changed from 0.4^o of varus to 5.4^o of valgus after surgery and the average correction angle was 5.8^o. During the follow-up, which averaged 7 years and 5 months, the knee score and function score were improved significantly in all groups regardless of the tibiofemoral angle (p<0.01). There were no significant difference between the groups in the clinical results (p>0.05). However, there were significant differences in the cumulative survival rate of implants between the groups and the highest rate was found in the group with a tibiofemoral angle of 4^o to 6^o of valgus (p<0.01). Conclusions: The tibiofemoral angle after UKA had no significant influence on the midterm clinical scores, but there was a significant relationship between the postoperative tibiofemoral angle and failure rate of implant.
참고문헌 (22)
- Cossey AJ, "The use of computer-assisted surgical navigation to prevent malalignment in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty", J Arthroplasty, 20, pp.29~34 (2005)
- Perkins TR, "Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: 3- to 10-year results in a community hospital setting", J Arthroplasty, 17, pp.293~297 (2002)
- Fisher DA, "Implant position in knee surgery: a comparison of minimally invasive, open unicompartmental, and total knee arthroplasty", J Arthroplasty, 18(7 Suppl 1), pp.2~8 (2003)
- Hernigou P, "Alignment influences wear in the knee after medial unicompartmental arthroplasty", Clin Orthop Relat Res, (423), pp.161~165 (2004)
- Kennedy WR, "Unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee. Postoperative alignment and its influence on overall results", Clin Orthop Relat Res, (221), pp.278~285 (1987)
- Ridgeway SR, "The effect of alignment of the knee on the outcome of unicompartmental knee replacement", J Bone Joint Surg Br, 84(84), pp.351~355 (2002)
- Insall JN, "Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system", Clin Orthop Relat Res, (248), pp.13~14 (1989)
- Bauer GC, "Tibial osteotomy in gonarthrosis (osteo-arthritis of the knee)", J Bone Joint Surg Am, 51, pp.1545~1563 (1969)
- Berger RA, "Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: indications, techniques, and results", Instr Course Lect, 59, pp.47~56 (2010)
- Kim KT, "A prospective analysis of Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty", Orthopedics, 30(Suppl 5), pp.15~18 (2007)
- Price AJ, "Long-term clinical results of the medial Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty", Clin Orthop Relat Res, (435), pp.171~180 (2005)
- Repicci JA, "Minimally invasive unicondylar knee arthroplasty for the treatment of unicompartmental osteoarthritis: an outpatient arthritic bypass procedure", Orthop Clin North Am, 35, pp.201~216 (2004)
- Saccomanni B, "Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a review of literature", Clin Rheumatol, 29, pp.339~346 (2010)
- Collier MB, "Patient, implant, and alignment factors associated with revision of medial compartment unicondylar arthroplasty", J Arthroplasty, 21(6 Suppl 2), pp.108~115 (2006)
- Emerson RH Jr, "Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with the oxford prosthesis in patients with medial compartment arthritis", J Bone Joint Surg Am, 90, pp.118~122 (2008)
- 김경태, "최소 침습 슬관절 부분치환술에서 대퇴경골간 정렬에 영향을 미치는 인자", 대한정형외과학회지, 41(1), pp.148~155 (2006), 대한정형외과학회
- Chauhan SK, "Computer-assisted knee arthroplasty versus a conventional jig-based technique. A randomised, prospective trial", J Bone Joint Surg Br, 86, pp.372~377 (2004)
- Coventry MB, "Osteotomy about the knee for degenerative and rheumatoid arthritis", J Bone Joint Surg Am, 55, pp.23~48 (1973)
- Iesaka K, "The effects of tibial component inclination on bone stress after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty", J Biomech, 35, pp.969~974 (2002)
- 정우빈, "Miller Galante®를 이용한 고정형 슬관절 부분치환술의 단기 추시 결과: 술 후 교정각에 따른 결과 분석", 대한정형외과학회지, 45(6), pp.426~432 (2010), 대한정형외과학회
- Cahue S, "Varus-valgus alignment in the progression of patellofemoral osteoarthritis", Arthritis Rheum, 50, pp.2184~2190 (2004)
- Saito T, "Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis of the knee: remaining postoperative flexion contracture affecting overall results", J Arthroplasty, 18, pp.612~618 (2003)