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

Year 2020, Volume: 3 Issue: 2, 51 - 55, 27.06.2020

Hakan Aslan Osman Yağız Atlı Hüseyin Bilgehan Çevik

Abstract

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. 

Keywords

Diz artroplastisi, diz protezi, Unikondiler, unikompartmantal, fiksasyon

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

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. 

Keywords

Knee arthroplasty, knee prostheses, Unicondylar, unicompartmental, fixation

References

• Ringdahl E, Pandit S. Treatment of knee osteoarthritis. American Family Physician. 2011;83(11):1287-1292.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Barrett WP, Scott RD. Revision of failed unicondylar unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;69(9):1328-1335.
• 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 randomized controlled trial on 79 patients using radiostereometry. Acta Orthop. 2019;90(1):67-73. doi:10.1080/17453674.2018.1543757
• Ollivier M, Abdel MP. The Complications and modes of failure of partial knee arthroplasty. İçinde: Argenson JN, Dalury D, ed. Partial Knee Arthroplasty. Springer; 2018:105-110.
• Howe DJ, Taunton OD, Jr., Engh GA. Retained cement after unicondylar knee arthroplasty. A report of four cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(10):2283-2286. doi:10.2106/00004623-200410000-00022
• Pandit H, Liddle AD, Kendrick BJ, et al. Improved fixation in cementless unicompartmental knee replacement: five-year results of a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(15):1365-1372. doi:10.2106/JBJS.L.01005
• Khaw FM, Kirk LM, Morris RW, Gregg PJ. A randomised, controlled trial of cemented versus cementless press-fit condylar total knee replacement. Ten-year survival analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84(5):658-666. doi:10.1302/0301-620x.84b5.12692
• Schlueter-Brust K, Kugland K, Stein G, et al. Ten year survivorship after cemented and uncemented medial Uniglide(R) unicompartmental knee arthroplasties. Knee. 2014;21(5):964-970. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2014.03.009
• Liddle AD, Pandit H, Murray DW, Dodd CA. Cementless unicondylar knee arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 2013;44(3):261-269, vii. doi:10.1016/j.ocl.2013.03.001
• Price AJ, Svard U. A second decade lifetable survival analysis of the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(1):174-179. doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1506-2
• Pandit H, Jenkins C, Gill HS, Barker K, Dodd CA, Murray DW. Minimally invasive Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee replacement: results of 1000 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93(2):198-204. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.93B2.25767
• Ridgeway SR, McAuley JP, Ammeen DJ, Engh GA. The effect of alignment of the knee on the outcome of unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84(3):351-355. doi:10.1302/0301-620x.84b3.12046
• Berger RA, Meneghini RM, Jacobs JJ, et al. Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum of ten years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(5):999-1006. doi:10.2106/JBJS.C.00568
• Von Keudell A, Sodha S, Collins J, Minas T, Fitz W, Gomoll AH. Patient satisfaction after primary total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: an age-dependent analysis. Knee. 2014;21(1):180-184. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2013.08.004