International Orthopaedics

, Volume 42, Issue 5, pp 1061–1066 | Cite as

Results with nine years mean follow up on one hundred and three KAPS® uni knee arthroplasties: eighty six medial and seventeen lateral

  • Dominique Saragaglia
  • Adrien Bevand
  • Ramsay Refaie
  • Brice Rubens-Duval
  • Régis Pailhé
Original Paper
  • 110 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to present the results of the KAPS® uni knee arthroplasty system, both mobile and fixed bearing with reference to function, alignment and complications in 103 implants with a mean follow-up of nine years.

Methods

This was a retrospective study of 103 unicompartimental knee arthroplasties in 89 patients operated on between March 2005 and March 2010. The population was composed of 50 males and 39 females, with a mean age of 70.5 ± 7.5 years (41 – 90). Eighty-seven patients had a genu varum deformity (84.5%), one of whom had an osteoid osteoma of the lateral tibial plateau and 16 patients had a genu valgum (15.5%). Eighty-six medial prostheses were implanted (82 mobile bearings and 4 fixed bearings) and 17 lateral prostheses (all fixed bearings) including the osteoid osteoma.

Results

At a mean follow-up of 107.5 months (73–138), 72 knees (58 patients) were reviewed (70%). The mean IKS score was of 173 ± 31 points (58 – 200). The mean Oxford knee score was 21 ± 8 points (12 – 50). The cumulated survival rate at a follow up of 132 months was 98.2%.

Conclusion

The KAPS® unicompartmental knee arthroplasty gives efficacious and safe outcomes in the majority of cases at a mean follow-up of nine years. The availability of both fixed and mobile bearings with the same instrumentation, allowing to choose the right implant intra-operatively, is a great advantage in order to avoid the occurrence of some complications, specific to mobile bearing prostheses (dislocation and over-correction).

Keywords

Gonarthrosis Unicompartimental knee arthroplasty Mobile bearing Genu varum Genu valgum 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest related to this article.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Borus T, Thornhill T (2007) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 15:9–18Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marmor L (1982) The Marmor knee replacement. Orthop Clin N Am 13:55–64Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goodfellow JW, O’Connor J (1986) Clinical results of the Oxford knee. Surface arthroplasty of the tibiofemoral joint with a meniscal bearing prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 205:21–42Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pietschmann MF, Wohlleb L, Weber P, Schmidutz F, Ficklscherer A et al (2013) Sports activities after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty Oxford III—what can we expect? Int Orthop 37:31–37.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1710-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lisowski LA, Meijer LI, Bekerom MP, Pilot P, Lisowski AE (2016) Ten- to 15-year results of the Oxford phase III mobile unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective study from a non-designer group. Bone Joint J 98-B(10 Supple B):41–47CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bottomley N, Jones LD, Rout R, Alvand A, Rombach I et al (2016) A survival analysis of 1084 knees of the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a comparison between consultant and trainee surgeons. Bone Joint 98-B(10 Supple B):22–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pandit H, Hamilton TW, Jenkins C, Mellon SJ, Dodd CA et al (2015) The clinical outcome of minimally invasive phase 3 Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a 15-year follow-up of 1000 UKAs. Bone Joint J 97-B:1493–1500.  https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B11.35634 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mercier N, Wimsey S, Saragaglia D (2010) Long-term clinical results of the Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 34:1137–1143.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-009-0869-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Saragaglia D, Picard F, Refaie R (2012) Navigation of the tibial plateau alone appears to be sufficient in computer-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 36:2479–2483.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1679-2 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Saragaglia D, Marques Da Silva B, Dijoux P, Cognault J, Gaillot J, Pailhé R (2017) Computerised navigation of unicondylar knee prostheses: from primary implantation to revision to total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 41:293–299.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3293-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jenny JY, Diesinger Y (2011) Validation of a French version of the Oxford knee questionnaire. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 97:267–271.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2010.07.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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
  13. 13.
    Cartier P, Mammeri M, Villers P (1982) Clinical and radiographic evaluation of modular knee replacement. A review of 95 cases. Int Orthop 6:35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cartier P, Cheaib S (1987) Unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 2:157–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Parratte S, Pauly V, Aubaniac JM, Argenson JN (2012) No long-term difference between fixed and mobile medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:61–68.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-1961-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Saragaglia D, Bonnin M, Dejour D, Deschamps G, Chol C, Chabert B, Refaie R, the French Society of Hip and Knee (2013) Results of a French multicentre retrospective experience with four hundred and eighteen failed unicondylar knee arthroplasties. Int Orthop 37:1273–1278.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-1915-4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pandit H, Jenkins C, Beard DJ, Gallagher J, Price AJ, Dodd CAF, Goodfellow JW, Murray DW (2009) Cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement shows reduced radiolucency at one year. J Bone Joint Surg 91-B:185–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vasso M, Del Regno C, Perisano C, D’Amelio A, Corona K et al (2015) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is effective: ten year results. Int Orthop 39:2341–2346.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2809-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sport TraumatologyGrenoble South Teaching HospitalÉchirollesFrance
  2. 2.Department of Trauma and OrthopaedicsWansbeck HospitalNorthumberlandUK

Personalised recommendations