Technical aspects of revision and functional outcome after revision of the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Abstract Background and purpose Analysis of technical aspects of revision of the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (OUKA) and functional results after revision. Methods In a historic cohort study we analysed all revised OUKAs that were primarily placed at our clinic in a 10-year period (1998...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The knee 2016-12, Vol.23 (6), p.1020-1023
Main Authors: Somford, Matthijs P, Brouwer, Reinoud W, Haen, Pieter-Stijn W.A, van Raay, Jos J.A.M, van Raaij, Tom M
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Aged
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee
Cohort Studies
Female
Humans
Joint surgery
Knee
Knee Prosthesis
Male
Middle Aged
Orthopedics
Osteoarthritis, Knee - surgery
Prosthesis Failure
Recovery of Function
Reoperation
Revision knee
Revisions
Skin & tissue grafts
Technical difficulties
Treatment Outcome
Unicompartmental knee
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract Background and purpose Analysis of technical aspects of revision of the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (OUKA) and functional results after revision. Methods In a historic cohort study we analysed all revised OUKAs that were primarily placed at our clinic in a 10-year period (1998–2009). Primary outcome is surgical difficulties encountered during revision surgery of the OUKA. Secondary outcomes are the knee society score (KSS), WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities), SF-36, VAS pain and VAS satisfaction after revision. Results During the study period 331 OUKAs were inserted. With an average follow-up of 6 years and 5 months (range 1 months – 9 years and 8 months), there were 44 (13.3%) OUKAs that needed one or more revision surgery procedures. The average time to revision was 3 years and 8 months (range 1 month - 9 years and 5 months). Main reasons for revision surgery were bearing luxation, malpositioning or loosening of a component and progression of osteoarthritis. Most revisions, mainly conversion to primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA), gave few surgical problems. Minor bone loss that needed no augmentation was seen most frequently. The functional outcomes after revision surgery were moderate. Conclusion Limited amount of surgical difficulties during revision of OUKA was found; in all total revision cases a primary TKA was placed. However, in most patients there were moderate functional results as well as disappointing pain and satisfaction scores after revision.
ISSN:0968-0160
1873-5800
DOI:10.1016/j.knee.2016.02.010