Fixed or mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement? A comparative cohort study

Gleeson, R.; Evans, R.; Ackroyd, C. E.; Webb, Jason; Newman, John H.

doi:10.1016/j.knee.2004.06.006

Cited by 95 publications

(86 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our revision rate of 4.3% at a mean 42.6 months (range, 12-102 months) is comparable to rates in previous studies [3,5,9,10,12] and is consistent with the documented revision rates for UKA in Australia [1]. Some studies report higher rates of revision ranging between 12% and 15% [2][3][4]12]. An aspect of this study rarely reported in the literature is the revision of a UKA to a second UKA [5,7].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Reintervention after Mobile-bearing Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

Clark

Campbell

Kiss

et al. 2010

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMedial compartment osteoarthritis is a common disorder that often is treated by unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Although the Oxford 3 prosthesis is commonly used based on revision rate and cumulative survival, our experience suggests that although there may be adequate implant survival rates, we observed a worrisome and undisclosed reintervention rate of nonrevision procedures. Purpose We describe the frequency and cause of repeat intervention subsequent to implanting this device. Methods Between 1998 and 2005, 398 patients underwent UKA using the Oxford 3 prosthesis. The minimum followup was 12 months (mean, 43 months; range, 12-102 months). Results Forty of the 398 (10%) patients had 55 (13.8%) repeat anesthetics (reintervention). There were 38 nonrevision reinterventions. Revision was performed in 15 patients (3.8%), but two patients had a second revision (17 revisions or 4.3%). We revised the UKA to a second UKA in seven of the 15 cases but two subsequently were rerevised to a TKA; eight were revised directly to a TKA.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Reintervention after Mobile-bearing Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

Clark

Campbell

Kiss

et al. 2010

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[1,2] Several previous series have examined outcomes and complications associated with these implants, but their cohort numbers have been relatively low in relation to other arthroplasty literature. [7,9,10,11] Proponents of mobile bearing designs argue for a more normal restoration of knee kinematics, which may theoretically translate to better long term knee range of motion. Li et al found this to be false, as both mobile and fixed bearing patients undergoing kinematic anaylsis had similar ranges of motion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[6] Advocates of fixed bearing implants argue for technical ease in implantation, especially in regards to ligamentous balancing. [7,8] Several retrospective and prospective studies have been performed comparing mobile versus fixed bearing components in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. [7,9,10,11] However, each component group was limited to approximately 20-50 participants.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[7,8] Several retrospective and prospective studies have been performed comparing mobile versus fixed bearing components in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. [7,9,10,11] However, each component group was limited to approximately 20-50 participants. One meta-analysis has compared both designs, with pooled data from each bearing type, with no significant difference found in clinical outcome or complication rate between mobile and fixed bearing designs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mobile Versus Fixed Bearing Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Series of 375 Patients

Murphy

Fraser²,

Mihalko³

2015

ReconRev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: We sought to compare outcomes, complications and survival between mobile and fixed bearing medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) in a large multi-surgeon group.Methods: Medical records of patients who underwent a medial UKA were queried between March 2003 and August 2012. Variables investigated included final range of motion (ROM), type of complication, and overall survivorship.Results: 375 medial UKAs were analyzed (308 mobile bearing and 67 fixed bearing). Average time to follow-up was 47 months. Final ROM was comparable (mobile: 1-122°, fixed: 1-120°, p = 0.34). Complications occurred in 20/308 (6.6%) mobile bearing UKA and 5/67 (7.5%) fixed bearing UKA (p = 0.77). The most common complications in mobile bearing implants were progression of lateral compartment disease and component loosening. The complications in fixed bearing implants were arthrofibrosis and tibial plateau fracture. Overall survivorship differed, but not significantly (mobile: 94.8%, fixed: 96.9%, p = 0.44).Discussion: In this largest reported cohort series comparing mobile versus fixed bearing UKA, we found no significant difference in final clinical knee range of motion, rates of complications, and survivorship between the two bearing types.

show abstract

“…Even though accounts of bearing dislocation in Oxford UKA are rare in the literature, bearing dislocation is one of the major complications for mobile-bearing UKA [5,24]. To prevent bearing dislocation, it is quite important to attain the appropriate soft tissue balancing in the knee.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%