Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Unikompartmental diz replasmanı sonrası revizyon total diz replasmanının sonuçları

Yıl 2014, , 419 - 423, 03.09.2014
https://doi.org/10.3944/AOTT.2014.13.0067

Öz

Amaç: Bu geriye dönük, gözleme dayalı çalışmanın amacı, başarısız Oxford Faz 3 medial unikompartmental diz replasmanı (UDR) sonrası uygulanan total diz replasmanının (TDR) sonuçlarını tanımlamaktı.

Çalışma planı: Çalışmaya başarısız aseptik UDR sonrası revizyon TDR’si uygulanan 24 hasta (20 kadın, dört erkek; ortalama yaş: 61) alındı. Sonuçlar Diz Derneği Skorlaması (DDS) ile değerlendirildi.

Bulgular: Hareketli insert dislokasyonu ve açıklanamayan ağrı en sık revizyon nedenleriydi. Ortalama DDS UDR öncesi 50.3 (dağılım: 37-66) ve TDR sonrası 82.2 (dağılım: 58-97) olarak ölçüldü. On yedi hastada mükemmel, dört hastada iyi, iki hastada orta ve bir hastada kötü sonuç elde edildi.

Çıkarımlar: Unikompartmental diz replasmanı yönteminin (çimentolu veya çimentosuz) TDR başarısına etkisi yoktur. Başarısız UDR’nin TDR ile revize edilmesi, tatmin edici erken dönem klinik sonuçlarıyla birlikte kolay bir işlemdir.

Kaynakça

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Furnes O, Espehaug B, Lie SA, Vollset SE, Engesaeter LB, Havelin LI. Failure mechanisms after unicompartmental and tricompartmental primary knee replacement with cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89:519-25.
  • Padgett DE, Stern SH, Insall JN. Revision total knee arthroplasty for failed unicompartmental replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1991;73:186-90.
  • Barrett WP, Scott RD. Revision of failed unicondylar unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1987;69:1328-35.
  • 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 Jan;91:52-7.
  • Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ, Murray DW. A critique of revision rate as an outcome measure: re-interpretation of knee joint registry data. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010;92:1628-31.
  • 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 clinical outcome of revision knee replacement after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty: 8-17 years follow-up study of 49 patients. Int Orthop 2010;34:649-53.
  • Pearse AJ, Hooper GJ, Rothwell A, Frampton C. Survival and functional outcome after revision of a unicompartmental to a total knee replacement: the New Zealand National Joint Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010;92:508
  • Saragaglia D, Estour G, Nemer C, Colle PE. Revision of 33 unicompartmental knee prostheses using total knee arthroplasty: strategy and results. Int Orthop 2009;33:969
  • Levine WN, Ozuna RM, Scott RD, Thornhill TS. Conversion of failed modern unicompartmental arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1996;11:79780
  • O’Donnell TM, Abouazza O, Neil MJ. Revision of minimal resection resurfacing unicondylar knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: results compared with primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2013;28:33-9.
  • Sarraf KM, Konan S, Pastides PS, Haddad FS, Oussedik S. Bone loss during revision of unicompartmental to total knee arthroplasty: an analysis of implanted polyethylene thickness from the National Joint Registry data. J Arthroplasty 2013;28:1571-4.
  • Saldanha KA, Keys GW, Svard UC, White SH, Rao C. Revision of Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty - results of a multicentre study. Knee 2007;14:275-9.
  • 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;93:198-204.
  • Smith H, Jan M, Mahomed NN, Davey JR, Gandhi R. Meta-analysis and systematic review of clinical outcomes comparing mobile bearing and fixed bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2011;26:1205-13.
  • Kim KT, Lee S, Kim TW, Lee JS, Boo KH. The influence of postoperative tibiofemoral alignment on the clinical results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res 2012;24:85-90.
  • The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register Report 2010. p. 57Murray DW, Pandit H, Weston-Simons JS, Jenkins C, Gill HS, Lombardi AV, et al. Does body mass index affect the outcome of unicompartmental knee replacement? Knee 2013;20:461-5.

Outcomes for revision total knee replacement after unicompartmental knee replacement

Yıl 2014, , 419 - 423, 03.09.2014
https://doi.org/10.3944/AOTT.2014.13.0067

Öz

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.

Kaynakça

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Furnes O, Espehaug B, Lie SA, Vollset SE, Engesaeter LB, Havelin LI. Failure mechanisms after unicompartmental and tricompartmental primary knee replacement with cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89:519-25.
  • Padgett DE, Stern SH, Insall JN. Revision total knee arthroplasty for failed unicompartmental replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1991;73:186-90.
  • Barrett WP, Scott RD. Revision of failed unicondylar unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1987;69:1328-35.
  • 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 Jan;91:52-7.
  • Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ, Murray DW. A critique of revision rate as an outcome measure: re-interpretation of knee joint registry data. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010;92:1628-31.
  • 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 clinical outcome of revision knee replacement after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty: 8-17 years follow-up study of 49 patients. Int Orthop 2010;34:649-53.
  • Pearse AJ, Hooper GJ, Rothwell A, Frampton C. Survival and functional outcome after revision of a unicompartmental to a total knee replacement: the New Zealand National Joint Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010;92:508
  • Saragaglia D, Estour G, Nemer C, Colle PE. Revision of 33 unicompartmental knee prostheses using total knee arthroplasty: strategy and results. Int Orthop 2009;33:969
  • Levine WN, Ozuna RM, Scott RD, Thornhill TS. Conversion of failed modern unicompartmental arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1996;11:79780
  • O’Donnell TM, Abouazza O, Neil MJ. Revision of minimal resection resurfacing unicondylar knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: results compared with primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2013;28:33-9.
  • Sarraf KM, Konan S, Pastides PS, Haddad FS, Oussedik S. Bone loss during revision of unicompartmental to total knee arthroplasty: an analysis of implanted polyethylene thickness from the National Joint Registry data. J Arthroplasty 2013;28:1571-4.
  • Saldanha KA, Keys GW, Svard UC, White SH, Rao C. Revision of Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty - results of a multicentre study. Knee 2007;14:275-9.
  • 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;93:198-204.
  • Smith H, Jan M, Mahomed NN, Davey JR, Gandhi R. Meta-analysis and systematic review of clinical outcomes comparing mobile bearing and fixed bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2011;26:1205-13.
  • Kim KT, Lee S, Kim TW, Lee JS, Boo KH. The influence of postoperative tibiofemoral alignment on the clinical results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res 2012;24:85-90.
  • The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register Report 2010. p. 57Murray DW, Pandit H, Weston-Simons JS, Jenkins C, Gill HS, Lombardi AV, et al. Does body mass index affect the outcome of unicompartmental knee replacement? Knee 2013;20:461-5.
Toplam 20 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Sağlık Kurumları Yönetimi
Bölüm Orijinal Makale
Yazarlar

Burak Akan Bu kişi benim

Tugrul Yildirim Bu kişi benim

Berk Guclu Bu kişi benim

Alper Kaya Bu kişi benim

Dogaç Karaguven Bu kişi benim

Ilker Cetin Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi 3 Eylül 2014
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2014

Kaynak Göster

APA Akan, B., Yildirim, T., Guclu, B., Kaya, A., vd. (2014). Outcomes for revision total knee replacement after unicompartmental knee replacement. Acta Orthopaedica Et Traumatologica Turcica, 48(4), 419-423. https://doi.org/10.3944/AOTT.2014.13.0067
AMA Akan B, Yildirim T, Guclu B, Kaya A, Karaguven D, Cetin I. Outcomes for revision total knee replacement after unicompartmental knee replacement. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica. Eylül 2014;48(4):419-423. doi:10.3944/AOTT.2014.13.0067
Chicago Akan, Burak, Tugrul Yildirim, Berk Guclu, Alper Kaya, Dogaç Karaguven, ve Ilker Cetin. “Outcomes for Revision Total Knee Replacement After Unicompartmental Knee Replacement”. Acta Orthopaedica Et Traumatologica Turcica 48, sy. 4 (Eylül 2014): 419-23. https://doi.org/10.3944/AOTT.2014.13.0067.
EndNote Akan B, Yildirim T, Guclu B, Kaya A, Karaguven D, Cetin I (01 Eylül 2014) Outcomes for revision total knee replacement after unicompartmental knee replacement. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica 48 4 419–423.
IEEE B. Akan, T. Yildirim, B. Guclu, A. Kaya, D. Karaguven, ve I. Cetin, “Outcomes for revision total knee replacement after unicompartmental knee replacement”, Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, c. 48, sy. 4, ss. 419–423, 2014, doi: 10.3944/AOTT.2014.13.0067.
ISNAD Akan, Burak vd. “Outcomes for Revision Total Knee Replacement After Unicompartmental Knee Replacement”. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica 48/4 (Eylül 2014), 419-423. https://doi.org/10.3944/AOTT.2014.13.0067.
JAMA Akan B, Yildirim T, Guclu B, Kaya A, Karaguven D, Cetin I. Outcomes for revision total knee replacement after unicompartmental knee replacement. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica. 2014;48:419–423.
MLA Akan, Burak vd. “Outcomes for Revision Total Knee Replacement After Unicompartmental Knee Replacement”. Acta Orthopaedica Et Traumatologica Turcica, c. 48, sy. 4, 2014, ss. 419-23, doi:10.3944/AOTT.2014.13.0067.
Vancouver Akan B, Yildirim T, Guclu B, Kaya A, Karaguven D, Cetin I. Outcomes for revision total knee replacement after unicompartmental knee replacement. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica. 2014;48(4):419-23.