Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Revisione delle protesi monocompartimentali

Revision surgery for failed unicompartmental knee replacement

  • Aggiornamenti
  • Published:
LO SCALPELLO-OTODI Educational

Abstract

The aims of this work were to determine the complexity of surgery required to revise failed unicompartmental knee replacement and to evaluate the outcomes following revision. Most failed unicompartmental knee replacement cases could be revised without the need for stemmed implants, augmentation, or bone allograft. When bone loss occurred, it was commonly on the tibia side. Good functional outcome for the revised unicompartmental knee replacement was generally superior to the total knee replacement revision and in many cases comparable to primary knee replacement.

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. Engh GA, Ammeen DJ (1999) Bone loss with revision total knee arthroplasty: defect classification and alternatives for reconstruction. AAOS Instr Course Lect 48:167–175

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Pearse AJ, Hooper GJ, Rothwell A et al. (2010) Survival and functional outcome after revision of a unicompartmental to a total knee replacement: the New Zealand National Joint Registry. J Bone Jt Surg Br 92:508–512

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Johnson S, Jones P, Newman JH (2007) The survivorship and results of total knee replacements converted from unicompartmental knee replacements. Knee 14:154–157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. National Joint Registry for England and Wales (2010) 7th Annual Report, pp 116–117

  5. Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ, Murray DW (2010) A critique of revision rate as an outcome measure. J Bone Jt Surg 92-B:1628–1631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Springer BD, Scott RD, Thornhill TS (2006) Conversion of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to TKA. Clin Orthop 446:214–220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Levine WN, Ozuna RM, Scott RD, Thornhill TS (1996) Conversion of failed modern unicompartmental arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: results compared with primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 11:797–801

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Padgett DE, Stern SH, Insall JN (1991) Revision total knee arthroplasty for failed unicompartmental replacement. J Bone Jt Surg Am 73:186–190

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Saragaglia D, Estour G, Nemer C, Colle PE (2009) Revision of 33 unicompartmental knee prostheses using total knee arthroplasty: strategy and results. Int Orthop 33:969–974

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sarraf KN, Konan S, Pastides PS et al. (2013) Bone loss during revision of unicompartmental to total knee arthroplasty: an analysis of implanted polyethylene thickness from the National Joint Registry data. J Arthroplast 28:1571–1574

    Article  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

  2. S.O.C. di Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Ospedale Maggiore di Chieri, Chieri, TO, Italia

    Elio Novarese

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

  3. Elio Novarese
    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, M. Schiraldi ed E. Novarese 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. & Novarese, E. Revisione delle protesi monocompartimentali. LO SCALPELLO 31, 127–131 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11639-017-0217-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11639-017-0217-9

Search

Navigation