Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a potential treatment
for isolated bone on bone osteoarthritis when limited to a single
compartment. The risk for revision of UKA is three times higher
than for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The aim of this review was
to discuss the different revision options after UKA failure. A search was performed for English language articles published
between 2006 and 2016. After reviewing titles and abstracts, 105
papers were selected for further analysis. Of these, 39 papers were
deemed to contain clinically relevant data to be included in this review.Objectives
Materials and Methods
Initial stability of tibial trays is crucial for long-term success of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in both primary and revision settings. Rotating platform (RP) designs reduce torque transfer at the tibiofemoral interface. We asked if this reduced torque transfer in RP designs resulted in subsequently reduced micromotion at the cemented fixation interface between the prosthesis component and the adjacent bone. Composite tibias were implanted with fixed and RP primary and revision tibial trays and biomechanically tested under up to 2.5 kN of axial compression and 10° of external femoral component rotation. Relative micromotion between the implanted tibial tray and the neighbouring bone was quantified using high-precision digital image correlation techniques.Objectives
Methods
A new generation of knee prostheses has been introduced with the intention of improving post-operative knee flexion. In order to evaluate whether this goal has been achieved we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. Systematic literature searches were conducted on MEDLINE and EMBASE from their inception to December 2007, and proceedings of scientific meetings were also searched. Only randomised, clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis. The mean difference in the maximum post-operative flexion between the ‘high-flex’ and conventional types of prosthesis was defined as the primary outcome measure. A total of five relevant articles was identified. Analysis of these trials suggested that no clinically relevant or statistically significant improvement was obtained in flexion with the ‘high-flex’ prostheses. The weighted mean difference was 2.1° (95% confidence interval −0.2 to +4.3; p = 0.07).
