Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Correlation of positioning and clinical results in Oxford UKA

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In a prospective clinical study, 59 patients with anteromedial osteoarthritis of the knee (61 knee joints) underwent minimally invasive medial Oxford unicompartmental arthroplasty phase 3. Clinical and radiographic examinations of 56 knees were carried out at five (4–7) years. American Knee Society (AKS) scores improved from mean 45.5 (20–80) points (knee score) and 55 (15–100) points (function score) before surgery to 90 (30–100) points in both scores after surgery. The position of each implant was determined on screened radiographs using an image intensifier. The implant position was analysed according to the Oxford X-ray rating system. We evaluated nine measures, and there was no detectable correlation between implant position and clinical result. However, long-term studies are needed before it is possible to elaborate an evidence-based guideline on positioning.

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
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aldinger PR, Clarius M, Murray DW et al (2004) Medial unicompartmental knee replacement using the “Oxford Uni” meniscal bearing knee. Orthopade 33(11):1277–1283

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Aldinger PR, Gill HS, Schlegel U et al (2005) Is computer navigation a useful tool in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty? A pilot cadaver study. Orthopade 34(11):1096–1102 1094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bargren JH, Blaha JD, Freeman MA (1983) Alignment in total knee arthroplasty. Correlated biomechanical and clinical observations. Clin Orthop Relat Res 173:178–183

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Benjamin J (2006) Component alignment in total knee arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect 55:405–412

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Clarius M, Hauck C, Seeger JB et al (2009) Pulsed lavage reduces the incidence of radiolucent lines under the tibial tray of Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty : Pulsed lavage versus syringe lavage. Int Orthop Feb 14 (doi:10.1007/s00264-009-0736-y)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fisher N, Agarwal M, Reuben SF et al (2006) Sporting and physical activity following Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee 13(4):296–300

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Goodfellow J, O’Connor J, Murray DW (2002) The Oxford meniscal unicompartmental knee. J Knee Surg 15(4):240–246

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD et al (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:13–14

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jahromi I, Walton NP, Dobson PJ et al (2004) Patient-perceived outcome measures following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with mini-incision. Int Orthop 28(5):286–289

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jeer PJ, Keene GC, Gill P (2004) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: an intermediate report of survivorship after the introduction of a new system with analysis of failures. Knee 11(5):369–374

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jeffcote B, Shakespeare D (2003) Varus/valgus alignment of the tibial component in total knee arthroplasty. Knee 10(3):243–247

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kasodekar VB, Yeo SJ, Othman S (2006) Clinical outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and influence of alignment on prosthesis survival rate. Singapore Med J 47(9):796–802

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Keys GW, Ul-Abiddin Z, Toh EM (2004) Analysis of first forty Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement from a small district hospital in UK. Knee 11(5):375–377

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lam LO, Shakespeare D (2003) Varus/valgus alignment of the femoral component in total knee arthroplasty. Knee 10(3):237–241

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Luscombe KL, Lim J, Jones PW et al (2006) Minimally invasive Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a note of caution! Int Orthop 3183:321–324

    Google Scholar 

  16. Muller PE, Pellengahr C, Witt M et al (2004) Influence of minimally invasive surgery on implant positioning and the functional outcome for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 19(3):296–301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Murray DW (2000) Unicompartmental knee replacement: now or never? Orthopedics 23(9):979–980

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Petersen TL, Engh GA (1988) Radiographic assessment of knee alignment after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 3(1):67–72

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rajasekhar C, Das S, Smith A (2004) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. 2- to 12-year results in a community hospital. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86(7):983–985

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rees JL, Price AJ, Beard DJ 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  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Robertsson O, Knutson K, Lewold S et al (2001) The routine of surgical management reduces failure after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83(1):45–49

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Saragaglia D, Estour G, Nemer C et al (2009) Revision of 33 unicompartmental knee prostheses using total knee arthroplasty: strategy and results. Int Orthop 33(4):969–974

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Shakespeare D, Ledger M, Kinzel V (2005) Accuracy of implantation of components in the Oxford knee using the minimally invasive approach. Knee 12(6):405–409

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Shakespeare D, Ledger M, Kinzel V (2005) The influence of the tibial sagittal cut on component position in the Oxford knee. Knee 12(3):169–176

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Smith JL Jr, Tullos HS, Davidson JP (1989) Alignment of total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 4(Suppl):S55–S61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Squire MW, Callaghan JJ, Goetz DD et al (1999) Unicompartmental knee replacement. A minimum 15 year followup study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 367:61–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 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  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Verdonk R, Cottenie D, Almqvist KF et al (2005) The Oxford unicompartmental knee prosthesis: a 2–14 year follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 13(3):163–166

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Vorlat P, Putzeys G, Cottenie D et al (2006) The Oxford unicompartmental knee prosthesis: an independent 10-year survival analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 14(1):40–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopädische Universitätsklinik Heidelberg, Schlierbacher Landstrasse 200a, 69118, Heidelberg, Germany

    Michael Clarius, Christian Hauck, Joern B. Seeger, Christian Merle & Peter R. Aldinger

  2. Institut für Medizinische Biometrie und Informatik, Im Neuenheimer Feld 305, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany

    Maria Pritsch

Authors
  1. Michael Clarius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christian Hauck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joern B. Seeger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maria Pritsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christian Merle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Peter R. Aldinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter R. Aldinger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Clarius, M., Hauck, C., Seeger, J.B. et al. Correlation of positioning and clinical results in Oxford UKA. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 34, 1145–1151 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-009-0881-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-009-0881-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation