A Comparison of Mobile and Fixed-Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty at a Minimum 10-Year Follow-up

被引:52
作者
Neufeld, Michael E. [1 ]
Albers, Anthony [2 ]
Greidanus, Nelson, V [1 ]
Garbuz, Donald S. [1 ]
Masri, Bassam A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ British Columbia, Dept Orthopaed, Reconstruct Orthopaed, Vancouver, BC, Canada
[2] McGill Univ, St Marys Hosp, Dept Orthopaed, Montreal, PQ, Canada
关键词
unicompartmental knee arthroplasty; mobile-bearing; fixed-bearing; implant survival; functional outcomes; revision; INDEPENDENT CENTER; OUTCOMES; REPLACEMENT; REVISION; IMPLANT; FAILURE; ARTHRITIS; MODES; RATES; SCORE;
D O I
10.1016/j.arth.2018.01.001
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: The long-term survivorship and functional outcomes of the mobile-bearing (MB) compared to the fixed-bearing (FB) unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) implant design remain a topic of debate. The aim of the current study was to compare the survivorship and functional outcomes of MB and FB UKA at a minimum 10-year follow-up. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 106 consecutive medial UKAs (89 patients) from our institution with a minimum 10-year follow-up. The 38 MB and 68 FB knees had follow-up of 14.2 years (12.9-15.5) and 11.5 years (10.2-15.1), respectively. Validated patient-reported outcomes and radiographs were evaluated as were etiology, timing, and complexity of revision. Kaplan-Meier 10-year survival was calculated with revision to total knee arthroplasty as the end point. Results: The 10-year survival was 82.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 65.8-91.9) for MB and 90.9% (95% CI 79.4-96.2) for FB UKA (P = .102), and 88.0% (95% CI 79.3-93.2) for the entire cohort. Patient outcomes were similar between groups, as were timing and etiologies for revision to total knee arthroplasty. One-third of revisions required either stems or tibial augments, and of these, all were of MB design. Conclusion: Survival and functional outcomes were similar between MB and FB designs. One-third of revisions required either stems or augments, all were of MB design. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1713 / 1718
页数:6
相关论文
共 28 条
  • [1] Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry, 2016, ANN REP 2012
  • [2] BELLAMY N, 1988, J RHEUMATOL, V15, P1833
  • [3] Statistics in brief:: The importance of sample size in the planning and interpretation of medical research
    Biau, David Jean
    Kerneis, Solen
    Porcher, Raphael
    [J]. CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2008, 466 (09) : 2282 - 2288
  • [4] Surgeon, Implant, and Patient Variables May Explain Variability in Early Revision Rates Reported for Unicompartmental Arthroplasty
    Bini, Stefano
    Khatod, Monti
    Cafri, Guy
    Chen, Yuexin
    Paxton, Elizabeth W.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2013, 95A (24) : 2195 - 2202
  • [5] The Effects of Primary Implant Bearing Design on the Complexity of Revision Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty
    Bloom, Kevin J.
    Gupta, Rishi R.
    Caravella, Joseph W.
    Shishani, Yousef F.
    Klika, Alison K.
    Barsoum, Wael K.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2014, 29 (01) : 106 - 109
  • [6] Results of the Oxford Phase 3 Mobile Bearing Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty From an Independent Center: 467 Knees at a Mean 6-Year Follow-Up: Analysis of Predictors of Failure
    Burnett, R. Stephen J.
    Nair, Rajesh
    Hall, Christine A.
    Jacks, Duncan A.
    Pugh, Luke
    McAllister, Megan M.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2014, 29 (09) : 193 - 200
  • [7] Comparison of a mobile with a fixed tibial bearing unicompartimental knee prosthesis: a prospective randomized trial using a dedicated outcome score
    Confalonieri, N
    Manzotti, A
    Pullen, C
    [J]. KNEE, 2004, 11 (05) : 357 - 362
  • [8] Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement
    Dawson, J
    Fitzpatrick, R
    Murray, D
    Carr, A
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-BRITISH VOLUME, 1998, 80B (01): : 63 - 69
  • [9] Comparison of a mobile with a fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee implant
    Emerson, RH
    Hansborough, T
    Reitman, RA
    Rosenfeldt, W
    Higgins, LL
    [J]. CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2002, (404) : 62 - 70
  • [10] Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty modes of failure: Wear is not the main reason for failure: A multicentre study of 418 failed knees
    Epinette, J. -A.
    Brunschweiler, B.
    Mertl, P.
    Mole, D.
    Cazenave, A.
    [J]. ORTHOPAEDICS & TRAUMATOLOGY-SURGERY & RESEARCH, 2012, 98 (06) : S124 - S130