Revision of Minimal Resection Resurfacing Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty to Total Knee Arthroplasty: Results Compared With Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty

Journal of Arthroplasty

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 33-39

  O'Donnell, Turlough M P ^a,b   Abouazza, Omar ^a   Neil, Michael J ^c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b St Vincents Clinic ^*  (Ireland)

^c ST VINCENT S HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

Minimal resection; Resurfacing; Revision; Unicompartmental

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AVASCULAR NECROSIS; BODY MASS; BONE GRAFT; BONE PLATE; CEMENTLESS PROSTHESIS; COMPARTMENT SYNDROME; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; FEMUR CONDYLE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTERNATIONAL KNEE SOCIETY SCORE; KNEE ARTHROPLASTY; KNEE PROSTHESIS; KNEE RADIOGRAPHY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; PROSTHESIS FAILURE; PROSTHESIS LOOSENING; RANGE OF MOTION; SCORING SYSTEM; TIBIA; TIBIA FRACTURE; TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT; TREATMENT FAILURE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNICOMPARTMENTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY;

EID: 84870736028     PISSN: 08835403     EISSN: 15328406     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2012.02.031     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Engh G.A. Orthopaedic crossfire-can we justify unicondylar arthroplasty as a temporizing procedure? In the affirmative. J Arthroplasty 2002, 17(Suppl 1):54.
2. Robertsson O., Borgquist L., Knutson K., et al. Use of unicompartmental instead of tricompartmental prostheses for unicompartmental arthrosis in the knee is a cost-effective alternative. 15,437 primary tricompartmental prostheses were compared with 10,624 primary medial or lateral unicompartmental prostheses. Acta Orthop Scand 1999, 70:170.
3. Marmor L. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: 10 to 13 year follow up study. Clin Orthop 1988, 226:14.
4. Mullaji A.B., Sharma A., Marawar S. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: functional recovery and radiographic results with a minimally invasive technique. J Arthroplasty 2007, 22:7.
5. Newman J., Pydsietty R.V., Ackroyd C. Unicompartmental or total knee replacement: the 15-year results of a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2009, 91-B:52.
6. Riddle D.L., Jiranek W.A., McGlynn F.J. Yearly incidence of unicompartmental knee replacement in the United States. J Arthroplasty 2008, 23:408.
7. US markets for reconstructive devices 2001 2002, Millenium Research Group, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
8. Insall J., Aglietti P. A 5- to 7-year follow-up of unicondylar arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1980, 62:1329.
9. Kumar A., Fiddian N.J. Medial unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee. Knee 1999, 6:21.
10. Laskin R.S. Unicompartmental tibiofemoral resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1978, 60:182.
11. Becker R., John M., Neumann W.H. Clinical outcomes in the revision of unicondylar arthroplasties to bicondylar arthroplasties. A matched-pair study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2004, 124:702.
12. Berend K.R., George J., Lombardi A.V. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty conversion: assuring a primary outcome. Orthopedics 2009, 32.
13. Järvenpää J., Kettunen J., Miettinen H., et al. The clinical outcome of revision knee replacement after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty: 8-17 years follow-up study of 49 patients. Int Orthop 2010, 34:649.
14. Pearse A.J., Hooper G.J., Rothwell A., et al. Survival and functional outcome after revision of a unicompartmental to a total knee replacement: the New Zealand National Joint Registry. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2010, 92:508.
15. Johnson S., Jones P., Newman J.H. The survivorship and results of total knee replacements converted from unicompartmental knee replacements. Knee 2007, 14:154.
16. Springer B.D., Scott R.D., Thornhill T.S. Conversion of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006, 446:214.
17. Engh G.A., Ammeen D.J. Bone loss with revision total knee arthroplasty: defect classification and alternatives for reconstruction. Inst Course Lect 1999, 48:167.
18. Insall J.N., Dorr L.D., Scott R.D., et al. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989, 13.
19. Ewald F.C. The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989, 9.
20. Repicci J.A., Eberle R.W. Minimally invasive surgical technique for unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J South Orthop Assoc 1999, 8:20.
21. Romanowski M.R., Repicci J.A. Minimally invasive unicondylar arthroplasty: eight-year follow-up. J Knee Surg 2002, 15:17.
22. O'Donnell T., Neil M.J. The Repicci II unicondylar knee arthroplasty: 9-year survivorship and function. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010, 468:3094.
23. Pandit H., Jenkins C., Gill H.S., et al. Minimally invasive Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee replacement: results of 1000 cases. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2011, 93:198.
24. Carr A., Keyes G., Miller R., et al. Medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. A survival study of the Oxford meniscal knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1993, 205.
25. Argenson J.N., Chevrol-Benkeddache Y., Aubaniac J.M. Modern unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cement: a three to ten-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2002, 84-A:2235.
26. Barrett W.P., Scott R.D. Revision of failed unicondylar unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1987, 69:1328.
27. Padgett D.E., Stern S.H., Insall J.N. Revision total knee arthroplasty for failed unicompartmental replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1991, 73:186.
28. Saldanha K.A., Keys G.W., Svard U.C., et al. Revision of Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty-results of a multicentre. Knee 2007, 14:275.