There has been a recent resurgence in interest in combined partial knee arthroplasty (PKA) as an alternative to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The varied terminology used to describe these procedures leads to confusion and ambiguity in communication between surgeons, allied health professionals, and patients. A standardized classification system is required for patient safety, accurate clinical record-keeping, clear communication, correct coding for appropriate remuneration, and joint registry data collection. An advanced PubMed search was conducted, using medical subject headings (MeSH) to identify terms and abbreviations used to describe knee arthroplasty procedures. The search related to TKA, unicompartmental (UKA), patellofemoral (PFA), and combined PKA procedures. Surveys were conducted of orthopaedic surgeons, trainees, and biomechanical engineers, who were asked which of the descriptive terms and abbreviations identified from the literature search they found most intuitive and appropriate to describe each procedure. The results were used to determine a popular consensus.Aims
Materials and Methods
The December 2014 Knee Roundup360 looks at: national guidance on arthroplasty thromboprophylaxis is effective; unicompartmental knee replacement has the edge in terms of short-term complications; stiff knees, timing and manipulation; neuropathic pain and total knee replacement; synovial fluid α-defensin and CRP: a new gold standard in joint infection diagnosis?; how to assess anterior knee pain?; where is the evidence? Five new implants under the spotlight; and a fresh look at ACL reconstruction
This is the second of a series of reviews of registries. This review looks specifically at worldwide registry data that have been collected on knee arthroplasty, what we have learned from their reports, and what the limitations are as to what we currently know.
The primary stability of the cementless Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacement (OUKR) relies on interference fit (or press fit). Insufficient interference may cause implant loosening, whilst excessive interference could cause bone damage and fracture. The aim of this study was to identify the optimal interference fit by measuring the force required to seat the tibial component of the cementless OUKR (push-in force) and the force required to remove the component (pull-out force). Six cementless OUKR tibial components were implanted in 12 new slots prepared on blocks of solid polyurethane foam (20 pounds per cubic foot (PCF), Sawbones, Malmo, Sweden) with a range of interference of 0.1 mm to 1.9 mm using a Dartec materials testing machine HC10 (Zwick Ltd, Herefordshire, United Kingdom) . The experiment was repeated with cellular polyurethane foam (15 PCF), which is a more porous analogue for trabecular bone.Objectives
Materials and Methods
The cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement
has been demonstrated to have superior fixation on radiographs and
a similar early complication rate compared with the cemented version.
However, a small number of cases have come to our attention where,
after an apparently successful procedure, the tibial component subsides into
a valgus position with an increased posterior slope, before becoming
well-fixed. We present the clinical and radiological findings of
these six patients and describe their natural history and the likely
causes. Two underwent revision in the early post-operative period,
and in four the implant stabilised and became well-fixed radiologically with
a good functional outcome. This situation appears to be avoidable by minor modifications
to the operative technique, and it appears that it can be treated
conservatively in most patients. Cite this article:
The October 2014 Knee Roundup360 looks at: microfracture equivalent to OATS; examination better than MRI in predicting hamstrings re-injury; a second view on return to play with hamstrings injuries; dislocation risks in the Oxford Unicompartmental Knee; what about the tibia?; getting on top of lateral facet pain post TKR; readmission in TKR; patient-specific instrumentation; treating infrapatellar saphenous neuralgia; and arthroscopy in the middle-aged.
We are entering a new era with governmental bodies
taking an increasingly guiding role, gaining control of registries,
demanding direct access with release of open public information
for quality comparisons between hospitals. This review is written
by physicians and scientists who have worked with the Swedish Knee
Arthroplasty Register (SKAR) periodically since it began. It reviews
the history of the register and describes the methods used and lessons
learned. Cite this article:
The October 2013 Knee Roundup360 looks at: Make it easy, release the MCL; Do patients remember clinical information in day surgery?; Osteoarthritis and arthroscopy?; How best to double your bundles; When to operate for infection; Cementless unicompartment knee replacement?; Tibial tubercle-trochlear groove confusion; Tarts, cherries and osteoarthritis
The use of robotics in arthroplasty surgery is expanding rapidly as improvements in the technology evolve. This article examines current evidence to justify the usage of robotics, as well as the future potential in this emerging field.
Partial knee arthroplasty (PKA), either medial
or lateral unicompartmental knee artroplasty (UKA) or patellofemoral arthroplasty
(PFA) are a good option in suitable patients and have the advantages
of reduced operative trauma, preservation of both cruciate ligaments
and bone stock, and restoration of normal kinematics within the
knee joint. However, questions remain concerning long-term survival.
The goal of this review article was to present the long-term results
of medial and lateral UKA, PFA and combined compartmental arthroplasty
for multicompartmental disease. Medium- and long-term studies suggest
reasonable outcomes at ten years with survival greater than 95% in
UKA performed for medial osteoarthritis or osteonecrosis, and similarly
for lateral Cite this article:
