Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cause di fallimento delle protesi monocompartimentali di ginocchio

Failed unicompartmental knee replacement

  • Aggiornamenti
  • Published:
LO SCALPELLO-OTODI Educational

Abstract

Over the past 20 years, there has been an increased use of unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) for medial osteoarthritis of the knee as an alternative treatment to total knee replacement (TKR). Unicompartmental knee replacement has several advantages over TKR, including better knee kinematics, fewer serious complications and a more cost-effective strategy. However, despite these benefits and improved success rates, joint registries in recent years have shown higher revision rates for patients with UKR than for those with TKR. Unicompartmental knee replacement failure rates are similar to those of TKR, assuming that UKR is performed on appropriately indicated patients and the correct surgical technique is followed.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Bibliografia

  1. Biswall S, Brighton RW (2010) Results of unicompartimental knee arthroplasty with cemented, fixed-bearing prosthesis using minimally invasive surgery. J Arthroplast 25(5):721–727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Borus T, Thornhill T (2008) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 16(1):9–18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hamilton WG, Collier MB, Tarabee E et al. (2006) Incidence and reasons for reoperation after minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 21:98–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bert JM (1991) Universal intramedullary instrumentation for unicompartimental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 271:79

    Google Scholar 

  5. Murray DW, Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ (1998) The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a ten-year survival study. J Bone Jt Surg Br 80(6):983–989

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Jasty M (1991) Why femoral components become loose. Instr Course Lect 40:151

    Google Scholar 

  7. McAuley JP, Engh GA, Ammeen DJ (2001) Revision of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 392:279–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Mintz L, Tsao AK, McCrae CR et al. (1991) The arthroscopic evaluation and characteristics of severe polyethylene wear in total knee replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res 273:215

    Google Scholar 

  9. Simpson DJ, Kendrick BJ, Dodd CA et al. (2011) Load transfer in the proximal tibia following implantation with a unicompartmental knee replacement: a static snapshot. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 225:521–529

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Laskin RS (1978) Unicompartimental tibiofemoral resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg 60-A:536

    Google Scholar 

  11. Liddle AD, Judge A, Pandit H, Murray DW (2014) Adverse outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee replacement in 101,330 matched patients: a study of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet 384(9952):1437–1445

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. S.O.C. di Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Centro Regionale di Chirurgia Protesica, Azienda Ospedaliera Santi Antonio e Biagio e C. Arrigo, Alessandria, Italia

    Giancarlo Bonzanini & Marco Schiraldi

Authors
  1. Giancarlo Bonzanini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marco Schiraldi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giancarlo Bonzanini.

Ethics declarations

Conflitto di interesse

Gli autori G. Bonzanini e M. Schiraldi dichiarano di non avere alcun conflitto di interesse.

Consenso informato e conformità agli standard etici

Tutte le procedure descritte nello studio e che hanno coinvolto esseri umani sono state attuate in conformità alle norme etiche stabilite dalla dichiarazione di Helsinki del 1975 e successive modifiche. Il consenso informato è stato ottenuto da tutti i pazienti inclusi nello studio.

Human and Animal Rights

L’articolo non contiene alcuno studio eseguito su esseri umani e su animali da parte degli autori.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bonzanini, G., Schiraldi, M. Cause di fallimento delle protesi monocompartimentali di ginocchio. LO SCALPELLO 31, 117–122 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11639-017-0216-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11639-017-0216-x

Search

Navigation