Significantly less patellofemoral complaints were seen with UKA with fixed-bearing tibial insert compared to mobile-bearing tibial insert.
📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale
🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Introduction: The aim of the study is to investigate the impact of fixed or mobile-bearing tibial inserts on patellofemoral arthrosis and evaluate which one to be preferred for patients with patellofemoral arthrosis.Methods: Operated in our clinic between January 2009 and February 2013, 33 with patellofemoral arthritis together with anteromedial compartment arthritis were included in the study.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Results: Unicondylar knee arthroplasty with fixed-bearing tibial inserts and 22 (66,6%) (male: 3, female: 19) and unicondylar knee arthroplasty with mobile-bearing tibial inserts 11 (33,9 %) (male: 2, female: 9) were implanted.Average knee flexion was found to be 116,5 degrees in 22 patients with mobile-bearing tibial inserts, and 114,5 in 11 patients with fixed-bearing tibial inserts.Conclusion: Patellofemoral arthrosis is an important factor for unicondylar knee arthroplasty prognosis and one of the determinants of patient satisfaction.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Significantly less patellofemoral complaints were seen with UKA with fixed-bearing tibial insert compared to mobile-bearing tibial insert.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2009 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri
Abstract
Introduction: The aim of the study is to investigate the impact of fixed or mobile-bearing tibial inserts on patellofemoral arthrosis and evaluate which one to be preferred for patients with patellofemoral arthrosis.Methods: Operated in our clinic between January 2009 and February 2013, 33 with patellofemoral arthritis together with anteromedial compartment arthritis were included in the study. Patellofemoral joints of patients were evaluated according to the scoring system defined by Fulkerson-Shea. Results: Unicondylar knee arthroplasty with fixed-bearing tibial inserts and 22 (66,6%) (male: 3, female: 19) and unicondylar knee arthroplasty with mobile-bearing tibial inserts 11 (33,9 %) (male: 2, female: 9) were implanted.Average knee flexion was found to be 116,5 degrees in 22 patients with mobile-bearing tibial inserts, and 114,5 in 11 patients with fixed-bearing tibial inserts.Conclusion: Patellofemoral arthrosis is an important factor for unicondylar knee arthroplasty prognosis and one of the determinants of patient satisfaction. Significantly less patellofemoral complaints were seen with UKA with fixed-bearing tibial insert compared to mobile-bearing tibial insert.
🔖
Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap
ÇATMA, M. F., AKSEKİLİ, M. A. E., KILINÇARSLAN, K., IŞIK, Ç., ANAFOROĞLU, B., Altay, M. (2016). Impact of Fixed-Bearing and Mobile-Bearing Tibial Insert in Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty. Acta Medica Anatolia, Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 2, 50–54. https://ajindex.com/articles/141635
Kaynakça (12)
Keblish PA, Briard JL. Mobile-bearing unicompartmen- tal knee arthroplasty: a-2 center study with an 11-year (mean) follow up. J Arthroplasty 2004;19:87-94.
Kretzer JP, Jakubowitz E. Wear analysis of unicondylar mobile bearing and fixed bearing knee systems: a knee simulator study.Acta Biomater 2011;7:710-5
Kozinn SC, Scott R. Current Concepts Review Unicon- dylar Knee Arthroplasty. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 1989;71:145-150
Batley RE, Stulberg SD, Robb III Wj, Sweeny HJ. Poly- ethylene wear in unicompartmental knee arthroplas- ty. Clin Orthop relat Res 1994;299:18-24 Bert JM. Unicompartmental knee replacement. Or- thop Clin North Am 2005;36:513-22.
Romanowski MR, Repicci JA. Minimally invasive uni- condylar arthroplasty using a freehand inlay tech- nique. Techniques in Knee Surgery 2004;3:46-54 Laskin RS. Unicompartmental tibiofemoral resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 1978;60:182-5
Carr A, Keyes G, Miller R,O'Connor J, Goodfellow J. Medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. A survival study of the Oxford meniscal knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1993;(295):205-13
Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr, Adams JB. Obesity, young age, patellofemoral disease, and anterior knee pain: identifying the unicondylar arthroplasty patient in the United States. Orthopedics. 2007;30:19-23.
Beard DJ, Pandit H, Ostlere S, Jenkins C, Dodd CA, Mur- ray DW. Pre-operative clinical and radiological assess- ment of the patellofemoral joint in unicompartmental knee replacement and its influence on outcome.The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2007;89:1602-1607. Hauptmann SM. Influence of patellofemoral osteoar- thritis on functional outcome after unicondylar knee arthroplasty Orthopade. 2005;34:1088, 1090-3.
Konywes A, Willis-Owen CA, Spriggins AJ. The long- term benefit of computer-assisted surgical navigation in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Sur gres 2010;5:94 Looner JH. Indications for Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty and Rationale for Robotic Arm-Assisted Tecnology. Am J Orthop. 2009;38:3-6
Owens BD, Stickles BJ, Balikian P, Busconi BD. Prospec- tive analysis of radiofrequency versus mechanical debridement of isolated patellar chondral lesions. Ar- throscopy. 2002;18:151-155.
Johnson S, Jones P, Newman JH. The survivorship and results of total knee replacements converted from unicompartmental knee replacements. Knee 2007;14:154-157 Emerson Jr RH.Unicompartmental mobile-bearing knee arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect 2005;54:221-224