Journals / Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica / 2015 / Cilt: 49 - Sayı: 3

Evaluation of mobile bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, opening wedge, and dome-type high tibial osteotomies for knee arthritis

Pages
280–287
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: UKA is the ideal option for patients who wish for the earliest possible return to social and recreational activities.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Three methods of surgery used in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA) are mobile bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (Oxford UKA), opening wedge high tibial osteotomy (HTO), and dome-type HTO.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: Between 2003 and 2010, 255 knees of 235 patients underwent operations for medial knee OA.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: UKA is the ideal option for patients who wish for the earliest possible return to social and recreational activities.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2003 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: Three methods of surgery used in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA) are mobile bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (Oxford UKA), opening wedge high tibial osteotomy (HTO), and dome-type HTO. This article aimed to retrospectively compare these three methods in terms of outcomes for health status, patient satisfaction, and function. Methods: Between 2003 and 2010, 255 knees of 235 patients underwent operations for medial knee OA. Three types of surgery were performed. Group 1 consisted of 109 knees of 94 patients who underwent Oxford UKA. Group 2 was made up of 36 knees of 36 patients who underwent HTO using circular external fixation, and Group 3 comprised 57 knees of 52 patients on whom opening wedge type HTO using locking plate fixation was performed. SF-36 and HSS knee scores were used to compare the functional outcomes among groups. Results: Statistically significant differences were found between the preoperative and postoperative measures in all 3 of the treatment groups for physical function, physical role, pain, general health, vitality, social function, emotional role, and mental health according to SF-36 and HSS scores. In the 2nd group, the average correction of the mechanical axis deviation (MAD) was 38 mm with 11.7º along the femorotibial axis and 6.2º along the medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA). In the 3rd group, the average correction in the MAD was 28 mm with 9.7º along the femorotibial axis and 5.6º along the MPTA. All 3 of the treatment alternatives were observed to be sufficient. Satisfactory postoperative results were achieved in the UKA group in terms of social function and mental health, and the patients were able to achieve early rehabilitation and return to their previous life activities. Conclusion: UKA is the ideal option for patients who wish for the earliest possible return to social and recreational activities.

🔖

Cite This Article

TUNCAY, İ., BİLSEL, K., ELMADAĞ, M., ERKOÇAK, Ö. F., AŞÇI, M., ŞEN, C. (2015). Evaluation of mobile bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, opening wedge, and dome-type high tibial osteotomies for knee arthritis. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, Cilt: 49 - Sayı: 3, 280–287. https://ajindex.com/articles/215439

References (15)

  1. Insall J, Aglietti P. A five to seven-year follow-up of unicondylar arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1980;62:1329– 37
  2. Laskin RS. Unicompartmental tibiofemoral resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1978;60:182–5
  3. Palmer SH, Morrison PJ, Ross AC. Early catastrophic tibial component wear after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998;350:143–8
  4. Whittaker JP, Naudie DD, McAuley JP, McCalden RW, MacDonald SJ, Bourne RB. Does bearing design influence midterm survivorship of unicompartmental arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468:73–81
  5. Emerson RH Jr, Higgins LL. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with the oxford prosthesis in patients with medial compartment arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008;90:118–22
  6. O’Rourke MR, Gardner JJ, Callaghan JJ, Liu SS, Goetz DD, Vittetoe DA, et al. The John Insall Award: unicompartmental knee replacement: a minimum twenty-oneyear followup, end-result study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005;440:27–37
  7. Price AJ, Short A, Kellett C, Beard D, Gill H, Pandit H, et al. Ten-year in vivo wear measurement of a fully congruent mobile bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005;87:1493–7
  8. Tabor OB Jr, Tabor OB. Unicompartmental arthroplasty: a long-term follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 1998;13:373– 9
  9. Zermatten P, Munzinger U. The Oxford II medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: an independent 10- year survival study. Acta Orthop Belg 2012;78:203–9
  10. Akizuki S, Mueller JK, Horiuchi H, Matsunaga D, Shibakawa A, Komistek RD. In vivo determination of kinematics for subjects having a Zimmer Unicompartmental High Flex Knee System. J Arthroplasty 2009;24:963–71
  11. Bonutti PM, Mont MA, McMahon M, Ragland PS, Kester M. Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86-A Suppl 2:26–32
  12. Gesell MW, Tria AJ Jr. MIS unicondylar knee arthroplasty: surgical approach and early results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004;428:53–60
  13. Dowd GS, Somayaji HS, Uthukuri M. High tibial osteotomy for medial compartment osteoarthritis. Knee 2006;13:87–92
  14. Dettoni F, Bonasia DE, Castoldi F, Bruzzone M, Blonna D, Rossi R. High tibial osteotomy versus unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for medial compartment arthrosis of the knee: a review of the literature. Iowa Orthop J 2010;30:131–40
  15. Lombardi AV Jr, Berend KR, Walter CA, Aziz-Jacobo J, Cheney NA. Is recovery faster for mobile-bearing unicompartmental than total knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop R