The interest in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) for
medial osteoarthritis has increased rapidly but the long-term follow-up
of the Oxford UKAs has yet to be analysed in non-designer centres.
We have examined our ten- to 15-year clinical and radiological follow-up
data for the Oxford Phase III UKAs. Between January 1999 and January 2005 a total of 138 consecutive
Oxford Phase III arthroplasties were performed by a single surgeon
in 129 patients for medial compartment osteoarthritis (71 right
and 67 left knees, mean age 72.0 years (47 to 91), mean body mass
index 28.2 (20.7 to 52.2)). Both clinical data and radiographs were
prospectively recorded and obtained at intervals. Of the 129 patients,
32 patients (32 knees) died, ten patients (12 knees) were not able
to take part in the final clinical and radiological assessment due
to physical and mental conditions, but via telephone interview it
was confirmed that none of these ten patients (12 knees) had a revision
of the knee arthroplasty. One patient (two knees) was lost to follow-up.Aims
Patients and Methods
This non-blinded randomised controlled trial compared the effect
of patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) A total of 242 patients were randomised; 20 were excluded due
to failure of spinal anaesthesia leaving 109 patients in the PCEA
group and 113 in the LIA group. Patients were reviewed at six weeks
and one year post-operatively.Aims
Patients and Methods
We reviewed the rate of revision of unicompartmental knee replacements (UKR) from the New Zealand Joint Registry between 1999 and 2008. There were 4284 UKRs, of which 236 required revision, 205 to a total knee replacement (U2T) and 31 to a further unicompartmental knee replacement (U2U). We used these data to establish whether the survival and functional outcome for revised UKRs were comparable with those of primary total knee replacement (TKR). The rate of revision for the U2T cohort was four times higher than that for a primary TKR (1.97 The poor outcome of a UKR converted to a primary TKR compared with a primary TKR should contra-indicate the use of a UKR as a more conservative procedure in the younger patient.
The global economy has been facing a financial crisis. Healthcare costs are spiraling, and there is a projected £30 billion health funding gap by 2020 in the UK. What is happening in the UK is a reflection of a global problem. Rationing of healthcare is a topic of much discussion; as unless spending is capped, providing healthcare will become unsustainable. Who decides how money is spent, and which services should be rationed? In this article we aim to discuss the impact that rationing may have on orthopaedic surgery, and we will discuss our own experiences of attempts to ration local services.
Peri-prosthetic infection is amongst the most
common causes of failure following total knee replacement (TKR).
In the presence of established infection, thorough joint debridement
and removal of all components is necessary following which new components
may be implanted. This can be performed in one or two stages; two-stage revision
with placement of an interim antibiotic-loaded spacer is regarded
by many to be the standard procedure for eradication of peri-prosthetic
joint infection. We present our experience of a consecutive series of 50 single-stage
revision TKRs for established deep infection performed between 1979
and 2010. There were 33 women and 17 men with a mean age at revision
of 66.8 years (42 to 84) and a mean follow-up of 10.5 years (2 to
24). The mean time between the primary TKR and the revision procedure
was 2.05 years (1 to 8). Only one patient required a further revision for recurrent infection,
representing a success rate of 98%. Nine patients required further
revision for aseptic loosening, according to microbiological testing
of biopsies taken at the subsequent surgery. Three other patients
developed a further septic episode but none required another revision. These results suggest that a single-stage revision can produce
comparable results to a two-stage revision. Single-stage revision
offers a reduction in costs as well as less morbidity and inconvenience
for patients. Cite this article:
With medial unicompartmental osteoarthritis (OA) there is occasionally a full-thickness ulcer of the cartilage on the medial side of the lateral femoral condyle. It is not clear whether this should be considered a contraindication to unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). The aim of this study was to determine why these ulcers occur, and whether they compromise the outcome of UKR. Case studies of knees with medial OA suggest that cartilage lesions on the medial side of the lateral condyle are caused by impingement on the lateral tibial spine as a result of the varus deformity and tibial subluxation. Following UKR the varus and the subluxation are corrected, so that impingement is prevented and the damaged part of the lateral femoral condyle is not transmitting load. An illustrative case report is presented. Out of 769 knees with OA of the medial compartment treated with the Oxford UKR, 59 (7.7%) had partial-thickness cartilage loss and 20 (2.6%) had a full-thickness cartilage deficit on the medial side of the lateral condyle. The mean Oxford Knee Score (OKS) at the last follow-up at a mean of four years was 41.9 (13 to 48) in those with partial-thickness cartilage loss and 41.0 (20 to 48) in those with full-thickness loss. In those with normal or superficially damaged cartilage the mean was 39.5 (5 to 48) and 39.7 (8 to 48), respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between the pre-operative OKS, the final review OKS or of change in the score in the various groups. We conclude that in medial compartment OA, damage to the medial side of the lateral femoral condyle is caused by impingement on the tibial spine and should not be considered a contraindication to an Oxford UKR, even if there is extensive full-thickness ulceration of the cartilage.
