Journals / Acta Medica Nicomedia / 2020 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 2

THE EFFECT OF CEMENT USAGE ON CLINICAL OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING UNICOMPARTMENTAL KNEE PROSTHESIS

UNİKOMPARTMANTAL DİZ PROTEZİ UYGULANAN HASTALARDA ÇİMENTO KULLANIMININ ERKEN-ORTA DÖNEM KLİNİK SONUÇLARA ETKİSİNİN KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI

Pages
51–55
Publication Date
2020-06-27
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)

In order to reach a definite conclusion on this issue, larger case series and longer follow-up time are needed.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The use of uncemented unicompartmental knee prostheses (UKP) has recently increased.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The aim of this study was to compare the clinical results of cemented and uncemented UKP.Methods: This retrospective study evaluated and compared the clinical outcomes of 85 Oxford® UDP (38 without cement, 47 cement) implanted in 78 patients.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In order to reach a definite conclusion on this issue, larger case series and longer follow-up time are needed.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Diz artroplastisi · diz protezi · Unikondiler

Abstract

Objective: The use of uncemented unicompartmental knee prostheses (UKP) has recently increased. However, there are few studies comparing cemented and uncemented UKP. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical results of cemented and uncemented UKP.Methods: This retrospective study evaluated and compared the clinical outcomes of 85 Oxford® UDP (38 without cement, 47 cement) implanted in 78 patients. The mean follow-up period was 18.3 months (range, 12-36 months). Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and KOOS (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) were used for clinical evaluation. Results: There were no statistically significant difference between the two groups before and after surgery in the knee joint range of motion, OKS, KOOS -pain, -symptoms, -activities of daily living, -sport and -quality of life scores (p>0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of re-operation rates (p>0.05). The mean surgery time in the uncemented group was 39.2 minutes, while it was 50.4 minutes in the cemented group (p<0.001).Conclusion: Uncemented UDP provides good clinical and functional results similar to cemented UDP, and has a similar complication rate and shorter operative time. In order to reach a definite conclusion on this issue, larger case series and longer follow-up time are needed.

Özet

Amaç: Çimentosuz unikompartmantal diz protezi (UDP) kullanımı son zamanlarda artmıştır. Bunun yanında çimentolu ve çimentosuz UDP uygulamalarının kıyaslandığı az sayıda çalışma bulunmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı çimentolu ve çimentosuz UDP uygulamalarının klinik sonuçlarını karşılaştırmaktır.Yöntem: Retrospektif olarak 85 Oxford® UDP (38 çimentosuz, 47 çimentolu) uygulanan 78 hasta değerlendirildi. Takip süresi ortalama 18,3 ay (12-36) idi. Hastaların klinik değerlendirilmesinde Oxford Diz Skoru (ODS) ve KOOS (Diz Yaralanma ve Osteoartrit Sonuç Skoru) kullanıldı.Bulgular: Diz eklem hareket açıklıkları, ODS, KOOS-ağrı, -semptom, -günlük yaşam, -spor ve -yaşam kalitesi skorları ameliyat öncesi ve sonrası dönemlerde her iki grup arasında karşılaştırıldığında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark bulunmamıştır (p>0,05). Her iki grup arasında re-operasyon oranları açısından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark yoktu (p>0,05). Çimentosuz grupta ortalama ameliyat süresi 39,2 dakika iken, çimentolu grupta 50,4 dakika idi (p<0,001).Sonuç: Çimentosuz UDP, çimentolu UDP’ye benzer oranda iyi klinik ve fonksiyonel sonuç sağlamakla birlikte, benzer komplikasyon oranına ve daha kısa ameliyat süresine sahiptir. Bu konuda net bir sonuca varılabilmesi için daha geniş olgu serileri ve daha uzun takip süresine ihtiyaç vardır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ASLAN, H., ATLI, O. Y., ÇEVİK, H. B. (2020). THE EFFECT OF CEMENT USAGE ON CLINICAL OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING UNICOMPARTMENTAL KNEE PROSTHESIS. Acta Medica Nicomedia, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 2, 51–55. https://ajindex.com/articles/450018

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (6)

  1. Ringdahl E, Pandit S. Treatment of knee osteoarthritis. American Family Physician. 2011;83(11):1287-1292.
  2. Rönn K, Reischl N, Gautier E, Jacobi M. Current surgical treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis. 2011;2011:1-9. doi:10.1155/2011/454873 Aslan H, Ersan O, Baz AB, Duman E, Aydin E, Ateş Y. Midterm results of Oxford phase 3 unicondylar knee arthroplasty for medial osteoarthritis. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2007;41(5):367-372.
  3. Halawi MJ, Barsoum WK. Unicondylar knee arthroplasty: key concepts. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2017;8(1):11-13. doi:10.1016/j.jcot.2016.08.010 Bert JM. Unicompartmental knee replacement. Orthop Clin North Am. 2005;36(4):513-522. doi:10.1016/j.ocl.2005.05.001 Laurencin CT, Zelicof SB, Scott RD, Ewald FC. Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in the same patient. A comparative study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991(273):151-156.
  4. Pandit H, Jenkins C, Beard D, et al. Cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement shows reduced radiolucency at one year. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91(2):185-189. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.91B2.21413 Goodfellow JW, Kershaw CJ, Benson MK, O'Connor JJ. The Oxford Knee for unicompartmental osteoarthritis. The first 103 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1988;70(5):692-701. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.70B5.3192563 Pandit H, Jenkins C, Gill HS, et al. Unnecessary contraindications for mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93(5):622-628. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.93B5.26214. Stempin R, Kaczmarek W, Stempin K, Dutka J. Midterm results of cementless and cemented unicondylar knee arthroplasty with mobile meniscal bearing: A prospective cohort study. Open Orthop J. 2017;11:1173-1178. doi:10.2174/1874325001711011173 Akan B, Karaguven D, Guclu B, et al. Cemented versus uncemented Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Is there a difference? Adv Orthop. 2013;2013:245915. doi:10.1155/2013/245915 Goodfellow J, O'Connor J, Murray DW. The Oxford meniscal unicompartmental knee. J Knee Surg. 2002;15(4):240-246.
  5. Barrett WP, Scott RD. Revision of failed unicondylar unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;69(9):1328-1335.
  6. Newman J, Pydisetty RV, Ackroyd C. Unicompartmental or total knee replacement: the 15-year results of a prospective randomised controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91(1):52-57. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.91B1.20899 Horsager K, Madsen F, Odgaard A, et al. Similar polyethylene wear between cemented and cementless Oxford medial UKA: a 5-year follow-up ra