Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Oxford phase III unicompartmental knee replacement in patients less than 60 years of age

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

Abstract

Treatment of younger patients with medial unicompartmental disease of the knee joint remains a challenging therapeutic dilemma. With the refinement of implant design, fixation and the minimally invasive techniques employed with unicompartmental knee replacement, indications have expanded to include its use in young patients. A prospective cohort of 46 unicompartmental knee procedures were performed with a 2-year minimum and 6-year maximum follow-up, using the Oxford phase III unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, in the younger patient group (age 60 or younger). We conclude that the unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is an important option for the treatment of medial compartment disease for patients 60 years or younger. Obesity can cause technical difficulties, increased risk of complications and early failure of this prosthesis.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ahlback S (1968) Osteoarthrosis of the knee. A radiographic investigation. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh) Suppl 277:7–72

    Google Scholar 

  2. Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr et al (2005) Early failure of minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is associated with obesity. Clin Orthop Relat Res 440:60–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bray GA (1987) Overweight is risking fate. Definition, classification, prevalence, and risks. Ann N Y Acad Sci 499:14–28

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Broughton NS, Newman JH et al (1986) Unicompartmental replacement and high tibial osteotomy for osteoarthritis of the knee. A comparative study after 5–10 years’ follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 68(3):447–452

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Brouwer RW, Jakma TS et al (2005) Osteotomy for treating knee osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev(1):CD004019

  6. Deshmukh RG, Hayes JH et al (2002) Does body weight influence outcome after total knee arthroplasty? A 1-year analysis. J Arthroplasty 17(3):315–319

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Deshmukh RV, Scott RD (2002) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for younger patients: an alternative view. Clin Orthop Relat Res(404):108–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Foran JR, Mont MA et al (2004) The outcome of total knee arthroplasty in obese patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A(8):1609–1615

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Foran JR, Mont MA et al (2004) Total knee arthroplasty in obese patients: a comparison with a matched control group. J Arthroplasty 19(7):817–824

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hanssen AD, Stuart MJ et al (2001) Surgical options for the middle-aged patient with osteoarthritis of the knee joint. Instr Course Lect 50:499–511

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

  12. Jackson RW (1998) Surgical treatment. Osteotomy and unicompartmental arthroplasty. Am J Knee Surg 11(1):55–57

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Murray DW (2005) Mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement. Orthopedics 28(9):985–987

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Murray DW, Goodfellow JW et al (1998) The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a ten-year survival study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80(6):983–989

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Pandit H, Jenkins C et al (2006) The Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement using a minimally-invasive approach. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88(1):54–60

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Pennington DW, Swienckowski JJ et al (2003) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients sixty years of age or younger. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A(10):1968–1973

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Price AJ, Dodd CA et al (2005) Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients younger and older than 60 years of age. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87(11):1488–1492

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Price AJ, Waite JC et al (2005) Long-term clinical results of the medial Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res(435):171–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Price AJ, Webb J et al (2001) Rapid recovery after oxford unicompartmental arthroplasty through a short incision. J Arthroplasty 16(8):970–976

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Rees JL, Price AJ et al (2004) Minimally invasive Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: functional results at 1 year and the effect of surgical inexperience. Knee 11(5):363–367

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Repicci JA (2003) Mini-invasive knee unicompartmental arthroplasty: bone-sparing technique. Surg Technol Int 11:282–286

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Romanowski MR, Repicci JA (2002) Minimally invasive unicondylar arthroplasty: eight-year follow-up. J Knee Surg 15(1):17–22

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schmalzried TP, Szuszczewicz ES et al (1998) Quantitative assessment of walking activity after total hip or knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 80(1):54–59

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Stickles B, Phillips L et al (2001) Defining the relationship between obesity and total joint arthroplasty. Obes Res 9(3):219–1223

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Stukenborg-Colsman C, Wirth CJ et al (2001) High tibial osteotomy versus unicompartmental joint replacement in unicompartmental knee joint osteoarthritis: 7–10-year follow-up prospective randomised study. Knee 8(3):187–194

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Svard UC, Price AJ (2001) Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. A survival analysis of an independent series. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83(2):191–194

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Tabor OB Jr, Tabor OB et al (2005) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: long-term success in middle-age and obese patients. J Surg Orthop Adv 14(2):59–63

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tibrewal SB, Grant KA et al (1984) The radiolucent line beneath the tibial components of the Oxford meniscal knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br 66(4):523–528

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. 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 Relat Res (302):134–137

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Maasland Hospital, P.O. Box 5500, 6130 MB, Sittard, The Netherlands

    Nanne P. Kort

  2. Department of Orthopaedics, Martini Hospital, P.O. Box 30033, 9700 RM, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Jos J. A. M. van Raay

  3. Department of Orthopaedics, Groningen University Hospital, P.O. Box 30001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Jim J. van Horn

Authors
  1. Nanne P. Kort
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jos J. A. M. van Raay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jim J. van Horn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nanne P. Kort.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kort, N.P., van Raay, J.J.A.M. & van Horn, J.J. The Oxford phase III unicompartmental knee replacement in patients less than 60 years of age. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15, 356–360 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-006-0204-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-006-0204-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation