KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica / 2014 / Cilt: 48 - Sayı: 4

Outcomes for revision total knee replacement after unicompartmental knee replacement

Burak AKAN
Tuğrul YILDIRIM
BERK GÜÇLÜ
ALPER KAYA
Doğaç KARAGÜVEN
İlker ÇETİN
Sayfa
419–423
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Revision for failed UKR with TKR appears to be a technically straightforward procedure with satisfactory early clinical results.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objective: The aim of this retrospective, observational study was to describe the outcomes of total knee replacement (TKR) after failed Oxford phase 3 medial unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR).
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Methods: The study included 24 revision TKRs (20 females, 4 males; mean age: 61 years) performed following failed aseptic UKR.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Revision for failed UKR with TKR appears to be a technically straightforward procedure with satisfactory early clinical results.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this retrospective, observational study was to describe the outcomes of total knee replacement (TKR) after failed Oxford phase 3 medial unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). Methods: The study included 24 revision TKRs (20 females, 4 males; mean age: 61 years) performed following failed aseptic UKR. Outcomes were assessed using the Knee Society Score (KSS). Results: The most common causes for revision were mobile bearing dislocation and unexplained pain. Mean preoperative KSS was 50.3 (range: 37 to 66) and 82.2 (range: 58 to 97) after TKR. There were 17 excellent, 4 good, 2 fair and 1 poor results. Conclusion: The type of UKR performed (cemented versus uncemented) had no effect on TKR success. Revision for failed UKR with TKR appears to be a technically straightforward procedure with satisfactory early clinical results.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

AKAN, B., YILDIRIM, T., GÜÇLÜ, B., KAYA, A., KARAGÜVEN, D., ÇETİN, İ. (2014). Outcomes for revision total knee replacement after unicompartmental knee replacement. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, Cilt: 48 - Sayı: 4, 419–423. https://ajindex.com/articles/353991

Kaynakça (10)

  1. Murray DW, Goodfellow JW, O'Connor JJ. The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a ten-year survival study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998;80:983-9.
  2. Saenz CL, McGrath MS, Marker DR, Seyler TM, Mont MA, Bonutti PM. Early failure of a unicompartmental knee arthroplasty design with an all-polyethylene tibial component. Knee 2010;17:53-6. National Joint Registry for England and Wales. In: 7th Annual Report 2010. p. 116-17.
  3. Furnes O, Espehaug B, Lie SA, Vollset SE, Engesaeter LB, Havelin LI. Failure mechanisms after unicompartmental and tricompartmental primary knee replacement with ce- ment. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89:519-25.
  4. Padgett DE, Stern SH, Insall JN. Revision total knee arthroplasty for failed unicompartmental replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1991;73:186-90.
  5. Barrett WP, Scott RD. Revision of failed unicondylar uni- compartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1987;69:1328-35.
  6. Newman J, Pydisetty RV, Ackroyd C. Unicompartmental or total knee replacement: the 15-year results of a prospec- tive randomised controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009 Jan;91:52-7.
  7. Goodfellow JW, O'Connor JJ, Murray DW. A critique of revision rate as an outcome measure: re-interpreta- tion of knee joint registry data. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010;92:1628-31.
  8. Otte KS, Larsen H, Jensen TT, Hansen EM, Rechnagel K. Cementless AGC revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1997;12:55-9. Järvenpää J, Kettunen J, Miettinen H, Kröger H. The clini- cal outcome of revision knee replacement after unicom- partmental knee arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty: 8-17 years follow-up study of 49 patients. Int Orthop 2010;34:649-53.
  9. Pearse AJ, Hooper GJ, Rothwell A, Frampton C. Survival and functional outcome after revision of a unicompart- mental to a total knee replacement: the New Zealand Na- tional Joint Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010;92:508- 12. Saragaglia D, Estour G, Nemer C, Colle PE. Revision of 33 unicompartmental knee prostheses using total knee ar- throplasty: strategy and results. Int Orthop 2009;33:969- 74. Levine WN, Ozuna RM, Scott RD, Thornhill TS. Con- version of failed modern unicompartmental arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1996;11:797- 801. O'Donnell TM, Abouazza O, Neil MJ. Revision of mini- mal resection resurfacing unicondylar knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: results compared with primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2013;28:33-9.
  10. Sarraf KM, Konan S, Pastides PS, Haddad FS,