Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical and functional comparison of uni- and bicondylar sledge prostheses

  • Knee
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

The aim of the present study was the evaluation of differences in clinical results, proprioceptive performance and gait in patients with unicondylar and bicondylar sledge prostheses of the knee. In a retrospective study, 17 patients with unicondylar sledge prostheses were compared with 15 patients with bicondylar sledge prostheses. Clinical examination was rated using HSS, Knee Society, and patellar scores and a visual analogue scale for pain. Proprioceptive performance was examined using sway measurements during single leg stance on a force platform. In addition, the patients underwent 3-D gait analysis including measurements of ground reaction forces and surface electromyographic (EMG) investigation of the lower extremity. Comparing both patient groups in clinical scores, gait, EMG and proprioception, no significant differences were found. Implantation of bicondylar sledge prostheses retaining both cruciate ligaments achieves functional results as good as unicompartmental arthroplasty. The presented results might encourage future research on new models of total joint replacement with preservation of both cruciate ligaments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Attfield SF, Wilton TJ, Pratt DJ, Sambatakakis A (1996) Soft-tissue balance and recovery of proprioception after total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 78:540–545

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Barrack RL, Skinner HB, Cook SD, Haddad RJ Jr (1983) Effect of articular disease and total knee arthroplasty on knee joint-position sense. J Neurophysiol 50:684–687

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Barrett DS, Cobb AG, Bentley G (1991) Joint proprioception in normal, osteoarthritic and replaced knees. J Bone Joint Surg Br 73:53–56

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cash RM, Gonzalez MH, Garst J, Barmada R, Stern SH (1996) Proprioception after arthroplasty: role of the posterior cruciate ligament. Clin Orthop 331:172–178

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chassin EP, Mikosz RP, Andriacchi TP, Rosenberg AG (1996) Functional analysis of cemented medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 11:553–559

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dorr LD, Ochsner JL, Gronley J, Perry J (1988) Functional comparison of posterior cruciate-retained versus cruciate-sacrificed total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 236:36–43

    Google Scholar 

  7. Feller JA, Bartlett RJ, Lang DM (1996) Patellar resurfacing versus retention in total knee arthroplasty [see comments]. J Bone Joint Surg Br 78:226–228

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fuchs S, Frisse D, Tibesku CO, Laass H, Rosenbaum D (2002) Proprioceptive function, clinical results, and quality of life after unicondylar sledge prostheses. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 81:478–482

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fuchs S, Thorwesten L, Niewerth S (1999) Proprioceptive function in knees with and without total knee arthroplasty. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 78:39–45

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Fuchs S, Tibesku CO, Frisse D, Laass H, Rosenbaum D (2003) Quality of life and gait after unicondylar knee arthroplasty are inferior to age-matched control subjects. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 82(6):441–446

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hanssen AD, Stuart MJ, Scott RD, Scuderi GR (2001) Surgical options for the middle-aged patient with osteoarthritis of the knee joint. Instr Course Lect 50:499–511

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hogervorst T, Brand RA (1998) Mechanoreceptors in joint function. J Bone Joint Surg Am 80:1365–1378

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Huskisson EC (1974) Measurement of pain. Lancet 2:1127–1131

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop 248:13–14

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ivarsson I, Gillquist J (1991) Rehabilitation after high tibial osteotomy and unicompartmental arthroplasty. A comparative study. Clin Orthop 266:139–144

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kapandji IA (1992) Funktionelle Anatomie der Gelenke: schematisierte und kommentierte Zeichnungen zur menschlichen Biomechanik. In: Funktionelle Anatomie der Gelenke: schematisierte und kommentierte Zeichnungen zur menschlichen Biomechanik. Enke, Stuttgart, p 245

  17. Lee TH, Tsuchida T, Kitahara H, Moriya H (1999) Gait analysis before and after unilateral total knee arthroplasty. Study using a linear regression model of normal controls—women without arthropathy. J Orthop Sci 4:13–21

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lewold S, Robertsson O, Knutson K, Lidgren L (1998) Revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: outcome in 1,135 cases from the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty study. Acta Orthop Scand 69:469–474

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mattsson E, Olsson E, Brostrom LA (1990) Assessment of walking before and after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. A comparison of different methods. Scand J Rehabil Med 22:45–50

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Newman JH, Ackroyd CE, Shah NA (1998) Unicompartmental or total knee replacement? Five-year results of a prospective, randomised trial of 102 osteoarthritic knees with unicompartmental arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:862–865

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Otsuki T, Nawata K, Okuno M (1999) Quantitative evaluation of gait pattern in patients with osteoarthrosis of the knee before and after total knee arthroplasty. Gait analysis using a pressure measuring system. J Orthop Sci 4:99–105

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ranawat CS, Insall J, Shine J (1976) Duo-condylar knee arthroplasty: hospital for special surgery design. Clin Orthop 120:76–82

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rougraff BT, Heck DA, Gibson AE (1991) A comparison of tricompartmental and unicompartmental arthroplasty for the treatment of gonarthrosis. Clin Orthop 273:157–164

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Simmons S, Lephart S, Rubash H, Borsa P, Barrack RL (1996) Proprioception following total knee arthroplasty with and without the posterior cruciate ligament. J Arthroplasty 11:763–768

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Simmons S, Lephart S, Rubash H, Pifer GW, Barrack R (1996) Proprioception after unicondylar knee arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 331:179–184

    Google Scholar 

  26. Skinner HB, Barrack RL, Cook SD, Haddad RJ Jr (1984) Joint position sense in total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Res 1:276–283

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Steiner ME, Simon SR, Pisciotta JC (1989) Early changes in gait and maximum knee torque following knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 238:174–182

    Google Scholar 

  28. Stukenborg-Colsman C, Wirth CJ, Lazovic D, Wefer A (2001) High tibial osteotomy versus unicompartmental joint replacement in unicompartmental knee joint osteoarthritis: 7–10-year follow-up prospective randomised study. Knee 8:187–194

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Swank M, Stulberg SD, Jiganti J, Machairas S (1993) The natural history of unicompartmental arthroplasty. An eight-year follow-up study with survivorship analysis. Clin Orthop 286:130–142

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Warren PJ, Olanlokun TK, Cobb AG, Bentley G (1993) Proprioception after knee arthroplasty. The influence of prosthetic design. Clin Orthop 297:182–187

    Google Scholar 

  31. Weale AE, Halabi OA, Jones PW, White SH (2001) Perceptions of outcomes after unicompartmental and total knee replacements. Clin Orthop 382:143–153

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Weale AE, Murray DW, Baines J, Newman JH (2000) Radiological changes five years after unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 82:996–1000

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Weale AE, Murray DW, Crawford R et al (1999) Does arthritis progress in the retained compartments after ’Oxford’ medial unicompartmental arthroplasty? A clinical and radiological study with a minimum ten-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 81:783–789

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Weale AE, Newman JH (1994) Unicompartmental arthroplasty and high tibial osteotomy for osteoarthrosis of the knee. A comparative study with a 12- to 17-year follow-up period. Clin Orthop 302:134–137

    Google Scholar 

  35. Weidenhielm L, Olsson E, Brostrom LA, Borjesson-Hederstrom M, Mattsson E (1993) Improvement in gait one year after surgery for knee osteoarthrosis: a comparison between high tibial osteotomy and prosthetic replacement in a prospective randomized study. Scand J Rehabil Med 25:25–31

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Wilson SA, McCann PD, Gotlin RS, Ramakrishnan HK, Wootten ME, Insall JN (1996) Comprehensive gait analysis in posterior-stabilized knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 11:359–367

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, University Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Strasse 33, 48129, Muenster

    S. Fuchs, C. O. Tibesku, D. Frisse, M. Genkinger & D. Rosenbaum

  2. Elisabeth Hospital, Iserlohn, Germany

    H. Laaß

  3. Movement Analysis Lab, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany

    D. Rosenbaum

Authors
  1. S. Fuchs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. O. Tibesku
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. Frisse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Genkinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. H. Laaß
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. D. Rosenbaum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Fuchs.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fuchs, S., Tibesku, C.O., Frisse, D. et al. Clinical and functional comparison of uni- and bicondylar sledge prostheses. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 13, 197–202 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-004-0580-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-004-0580-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation