Advertisement

The Oxford unicompartmental knee prosthesis: an independent 10-year survival analysis

  • Peter VorlatEmail author
  • Guy Putzeys
  • Dominique Cottenie
  • Tom Van Isacker
  • Nicole Pouliart
  • Frank Handelberg
  • Pierre-Paul Casteleyn
  • Filip Gheysen
  • René Verdonk
Knee

Abstract

One hundred forty-nine medial prostheses were implanted in 140 patients between 1988 and 1996. After a mean of 67 months 28 patients had died, without the need for revision. Seventeen prostheses were lost to follow-up. Revision surgery using a total knee prosthesis was performed in 16 cases. In four others, a lateral prosthesis was implanted subsequently to a medial one. One of these four was revised to a total knee prosthesis 6 years later. In another four cases, late complications of the meniscal bearing were treated with replacement of this bearing. The surviving prostheses were seen back after a mean of 126 months. The cumulative survival rate at 10 years was 82% for the whole population and 84% when knees with a previous high tibial osteotomy were excluded. Since these results compare poorly to the survival of total knee arthroplasty, this prosthesis is not the first-choice implant. Because it preserves a maximum of bone stock and is revised to a total prosthesis almost without difficulty, it is the first-choice implant for medial unicompartmental osteoarthritis in patients younger than 65. Further research is mandatory to confirm that this prosthesis very rarely needs revision in patients older than 75. It should not be used in osteotomized knees.

Keywords

Oxford knee hemiprosthesis Unicompartmental osteoarthritis Knee prosthesis Mobile bearing 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Professor L. Kaufman, Department of Medical Statistics, V.U.B. for his advice about the statistical analyses.

References

  1. 1.
    Aglietti P, Buzzi R, Vena LM, Baldini A, Mondaini A (2003) High tibial valgus osteotomy for medial gonarthrosis: a 10- to 21-year study. J Knee Surg 16:21–26PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ahlback S (1968) Osteoarthrosis of the knee: a radiographic investigation. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh) Suppl 277:7–72Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Argenson JN, El Kohen A, Aubaniac JM, Svard UC, Sanders RJ, Plat W, O’Connor JJ, Goodfellow JW (1993) Multicentre survival study of 552 unicompartmental arthroplasty using the Oxford meniscal knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75(Supp 2):130–131Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Argenson JN, O’Connor JJ (1992) Polyethylene wear in meniscal knee replacement: a one to nine-year retrieval analysis of the Oxford knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br 74:228–232PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barrett DS, Biswas SP, MacKenney RP (1990) The Oxford knee replacement. A review from an independent centre. J Bone Joint Surg Br 72:775–778PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berman AT, Bosacco SJ, Kirshner S, Avolio A Jr (1991) Factors influencing long-term results in high tibial osteotomy. Clin Orthop 272:192–198PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Billings A, Scott DF, Camargo MP, Hofmann AA (2000) High tibial osteotomy with a calibrated osteotomy guide, rigid internal fixation, and early motion: long-term follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82:70–79PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bradley J, Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ (1987) A radiographic study of bearing movement in unicompartmental Oxford knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br 69:598–601PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Buechel FF Sr (2002) Long-term followup after mobile-bearing total knee replacement. Clin Orthop 404:40–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carr A, Keyes G, Miller R, O’Connor J, Goodfellow J (1993) Medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a survival study of the Oxford meniscal knee. Clin Orthop 295:205–213PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chakrabarty G, Newman JH, Ackroyd CE (1998) Revision of unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee: clinical and technical considerations. J Arthroplasty 13:191–196CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Diduch DR, Insall JN, Scott WN, Scuderi GR, Font-Rodriguez D (1997) Total knee replacement in young, active patients: long-term follow-up and functional outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79:575–582PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goodfellow J, O’Connor J (1978) The mechanics of the knee and prosthesis design. J Bone Joint Surg Br 60:358–369Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goodfellow J, O’Connor J (1992) The anterior cruciate ligament in knee arthroplasty: a risk-factor with unconstrained meniscal prostheses. Clin Orthop 276:245–252PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goodfellow JW, Tibrewal SB, Sherman KP, O’Connor JJ (1987) Unicompartmental Oxford Meniscal knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2:1–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hernborg JS, Nilsson BE (1977) The natural course of untreated osteoarthritis of the knee. Clin Orthop 123:130–137PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop 248:13–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jackson M, Sarangi PP, Newman JH (1994) Revision total knee arthroplasty: comparison of outcome following primary proximal tibial osteotomy or unicompartmental arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 9:539–542CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Keating EM, Meding JB, Faris PM, Ritter MA (2002) Long-term followup of nonmodular total knee replacements. Clin Orthop 404:34–39PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kennedy WR, White RP (1987) Unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee: postoperative alignment and its influence on overall results. Clin Orthop 221:278–285PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kozinn SC, Scott R (1989) Unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 71:145–150PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lewold S, Goodman S, Knutson K, Robertsson O, Lidgren L (1995) Oxford meniscal bearing knee versus the Marmor knee in unicompartmental arthroplasty for arthrosis: a Swedish multicenter survival study. J Arthroplasty 10:722–731CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Murray DW, Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ (1998) The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a ten-year survival study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:983–989CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nationaal Instituut voor de Statistiek - FOD Economie, KMO Middenstand en Energie (http://statbel.fgov.be/home_nl.htm) (2004) Sterftetafels 2001 België. http://www.statbel.fgov.be/downloads/mt2001bel_nl.xls
  25. 25.
    Psychoyios V, Crawford RW, O’Connor JJ, Murray DW (1998) Wear of congruent meniscal bearings in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a retrieval study of 16 specimens. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:976–982CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ranawat CS, Boachie-Adjei O (1988) Survivorship analysis and results of total condylar knee arthroplasty. Eight- to 11-year follow-up period. Clin Orthop 226:6–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ranawat CS, Flynn WF Jr, Saddler S, Hansraj KK, Maynard MJ (1993) Long-term results of the total condylar knee arthroplasty: a 15-year survivorship study. Clin Orthop 286:94–102PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rees JL, Price AJ, Lynskey TG, Svard UC, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2001) Medial unicompartmental arthroplasty after failed high tibial osteotomy. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83:1034–1036CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ritter MA, Berend ME, Meding JB, Keating EM, Faris PM, Crites BM (2001) Long-term followup of anatomic graduated components posterior cruciate-retaining total knee replacement. Clin Orthop 388:51–57PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ritter MA, Campbell E, Faris PM, Keating EM (1989) Long-term survival analysis of the posterior cruciate condylar total knee arthroplasty. A 10-year evaluation. J Arthroplasty 4:293–296PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sprenger TR, Doerzbacher JF (2003) Tibial osteotomy for the treatment of varus gonarthrosis: survival and failure analysis to twenty-two years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85:469–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stern SH, Insall JN (1992) Posterior stabilized prosthesis: results after follow-up of nine to twelve years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 74:980–986PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Svard UC, Price AJ (2001) Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a survival analysis of an independent series. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83:191–194PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    van Loon CJ, Pluk C, de Waal Malefijt MC, de Kock M, Veth RP (2001) The GSB total knee arthroplasty. A medium- and long-term follow-up and survival analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 121:26–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Verhaven E, Casteleyn PP, Haentjens P, Handelberg F, De Boeck H, Van Betten F, Opdecam P (1989) Dome osteotomy of the tibia for osteoarthritis of the knee. Acta Orthop Belg 55:547–555PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Weale AE, Halabi OA, Jones PW, White SH (2001) Perceptions of outcomes after unicompartmental and total knee replacements. Clin Orthop 382:143–153PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Vorlat
    • 1
    Email author
  • Guy Putzeys
    • 2
  • Dominique Cottenie
    • 3
  • Tom Van Isacker
    • 1
  • Nicole Pouliart
    • 1
  • Frank Handelberg
    • 1
  • Pierre-Paul Casteleyn
    • 1
  • Filip Gheysen
    • 2
  • René Verdonk
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryVrije Universiteit Brussel—University HospitalBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Orthopedisch Centrum KortrijkAZ Groeninge – Campus Sint MaartenKortrijkBelgium
  3. 3.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryGhent University HospitalGentBelgium

Personalised recommendations