TY - JOUR
T1 - High rate of implant loosening for uncemented resurfacing-type medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
AU - Bruni, Danilo
AU - Zaffagnini, Stefano
AU - Iacono, Francesco
AU - Bragonzoni, Laura
AU - Lo Presti, Mirco
AU - Neri, Maria Pia
AU - Muccioli, Giulio Maria Marcheggiani
AU - Nitri, Marco
AU - Raspugli, Giovanni Francesco
AU - Marcacci, Maurilio
PY - 2016
Y1 - 2016
N2 - PURPOSE:
To determine the medium-term implant survivorship, the clinical results and the failure mechanisms of a novel unicompartmental arthroplasty for uncemented resurfacing of the medial tibio-femoral compartment.
METHODS:
Seventy-six consecutive patients were prospectively evaluated with a mean final follow-up of 6 years (SD 5.3 months). In 44 patients, the diagnosis was osteoarthritis, and in 32 patients, it was avascular necrosis of the medial femoral condyle. The Hospital for Special Surgery Score was used for objective clinical evaluation, and a self-administered visual analogue scale was used to quantify residual pain at each observation point. Implant survivorship was determined assuming revision for any reason as endpoint.
RESULTS:
Nineteen patients were revised (6 with osteoarthritis and 13 with avascular necrosis of the medial femoral condyle). The mean interval time from index surgery to revision was 11.2 months (SD 4.66 months). Implant survivorship was higher in patients with osteoarthritis with respect to those with avascular necrosis of the medial femoral condyle (p = 0.018). Aseptic loosening was the most frequent failure mechanism. Femoral component loosening was reported in five patients and tibial component loosening was reported in other six patients. Assuming revision for any reason as endpoint, an implant survivorship of 74.3 % at 6-year follow-up was determined. In the remaining 57 patients, satisfactory clinical results were obtained. Hospital for Special Surgery Score and visual analogue scale for residual pain showed significant improvements (p < 0.03 and p < 0.045, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS:
At the present time, the standard cemented implants and the conventional designs for unicompartmental knee replacement still represent the optimal solution. The authors do not recommend the widespread use of this technique.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:
IV.
AB - PURPOSE:
To determine the medium-term implant survivorship, the clinical results and the failure mechanisms of a novel unicompartmental arthroplasty for uncemented resurfacing of the medial tibio-femoral compartment.
METHODS:
Seventy-six consecutive patients were prospectively evaluated with a mean final follow-up of 6 years (SD 5.3 months). In 44 patients, the diagnosis was osteoarthritis, and in 32 patients, it was avascular necrosis of the medial femoral condyle. The Hospital for Special Surgery Score was used for objective clinical evaluation, and a self-administered visual analogue scale was used to quantify residual pain at each observation point. Implant survivorship was determined assuming revision for any reason as endpoint.
RESULTS:
Nineteen patients were revised (6 with osteoarthritis and 13 with avascular necrosis of the medial femoral condyle). The mean interval time from index surgery to revision was 11.2 months (SD 4.66 months). Implant survivorship was higher in patients with osteoarthritis with respect to those with avascular necrosis of the medial femoral condyle (p = 0.018). Aseptic loosening was the most frequent failure mechanism. Femoral component loosening was reported in five patients and tibial component loosening was reported in other six patients. Assuming revision for any reason as endpoint, an implant survivorship of 74.3 % at 6-year follow-up was determined. In the remaining 57 patients, satisfactory clinical results were obtained. Hospital for Special Surgery Score and visual analogue scale for residual pain showed significant improvements (p < 0.03 and p < 0.045, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS:
At the present time, the standard cemented implants and the conventional designs for unicompartmental knee replacement still represent the optimal solution. The authors do not recommend the widespread use of this technique.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:
IV.
KW - Aseptic loosening
KW - Cementless fixation
KW - Focal resurfacing
KW - Minimal bone resection
KW - Minimally invasive surgery
KW - Unicompartmental knee replacement
U2 - 10.1007/s00167-014-3444-0
DO - 10.1007/s00167-014-3444-0
M3 - Article
SN - 0942-2056
VL - 24
SP - 3175
EP - 3182
JO - Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
JF - Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
IS - 10
ER -