Indications and results of unicompartmental arthroplasty
There is currently a resurgence of interest in unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR), primarily because of the minimally invasive approach but also because there are now some reports of UKR achieving similar long-term survival rates to total knee replacement (TKR). These improved survival rates ar...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2003
|
| _version_ | 1797100125453025280 |
|---|---|
| author | Robinson, B Price, A Murray, D McLardy-Smith, P |
| author_facet | Robinson, B Price, A Murray, D McLardy-Smith, P |
| author_sort | Robinson, B |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | There is currently a resurgence of interest in unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR), primarily because of the minimally invasive approach but also because there are now some reports of UKR achieving similar long-term survival rates to total knee replacement (TKR). These improved survival rates are the result of more precise indications, improved implant design, and better surgical techniques. To achieve good 10-year survival with fixed bearing devices, precise indications are necessary; approximately 1 in 10 patients requiring knee replacement are appropriate. The indications are not as narrow when using a mobile bearing device such as the Oxford knee, because of improved wear resistance and instrumentation; approximately one in four patients are appropriate. However, the mobile bearing device is technically more demanding to implant than most fixed bearing devices. There is a vogue to consider UKR to be a preknee replacement. As a result, many new prosthetic designs are being implanted with a minimally invasive approach often with poor instrumentation in a very wide range of patients. It is our belief that those patients who satisfy the accepted indications should be treated with a proven design using sophisticated instrumentation. It remains debatable whether those patients who do not satisfy these indications should have a UKR as a preknee replacement or should have a TKR. © 2003 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Inc. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T05:33:19Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:e305e5ce-2e4e-41bd-a840-f6bff63b45a7 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-07T05:33:19Z |
| publishDate | 2003 |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:e305e5ce-2e4e-41bd-a840-f6bff63b45a72022-03-27T10:05:48ZIndications and results of unicompartmental arthroplastyJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:e305e5ce-2e4e-41bd-a840-f6bff63b45a7EnglishSymplectic Elements at Oxford2003Robinson, BPrice, AMurray, DMcLardy-Smith, PThere is currently a resurgence of interest in unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR), primarily because of the minimally invasive approach but also because there are now some reports of UKR achieving similar long-term survival rates to total knee replacement (TKR). These improved survival rates are the result of more precise indications, improved implant design, and better surgical techniques. To achieve good 10-year survival with fixed bearing devices, precise indications are necessary; approximately 1 in 10 patients requiring knee replacement are appropriate. The indications are not as narrow when using a mobile bearing device such as the Oxford knee, because of improved wear resistance and instrumentation; approximately one in four patients are appropriate. However, the mobile bearing device is technically more demanding to implant than most fixed bearing devices. There is a vogue to consider UKR to be a preknee replacement. As a result, many new prosthetic designs are being implanted with a minimally invasive approach often with poor instrumentation in a very wide range of patients. It is our belief that those patients who satisfy the accepted indications should be treated with a proven design using sophisticated instrumentation. It remains debatable whether those patients who do not satisfy these indications should have a UKR as a preknee replacement or should have a TKR. © 2003 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Inc. |
| spellingShingle | Robinson, B Price, A Murray, D McLardy-Smith, P Indications and results of unicompartmental arthroplasty |
| title | Indications and results of unicompartmental arthroplasty |
| title_full | Indications and results of unicompartmental arthroplasty |
| title_fullStr | Indications and results of unicompartmental arthroplasty |
| title_full_unstemmed | Indications and results of unicompartmental arthroplasty |
| title_short | Indications and results of unicompartmental arthroplasty |
| title_sort | indications and results of unicompartmental arthroplasty |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT robinsonb indicationsandresultsofunicompartmentalarthroplasty AT pricea indicationsandresultsofunicompartmentalarthroplasty AT murrayd indicationsandresultsofunicompartmentalarthroplasty AT mclardysmithp indicationsandresultsofunicompartmentalarthroplasty |