Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Orthopaedics
Published in: International Orthopaedics 3/2007

01-06-2007 | Original Paper

Minimally invasive Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

A note of caution!

Authors: K. L. Luscombe, J. Lim, P. W. Jones, S. H. White

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 3/2007

Login to get access

Abstract

We present the peak outcome results of the Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty through a minimally invasive ssurgical incision. This prospective study included 78 Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacements in 68 patients. At the 2 year review the patients achieved a mean Oxford Knee Score of 38.3. This was not significantly different to the 2 year results of the phase 2 Oxford knee carried out using a standard parapatellar approach when patients achieved a mean OKS of 36.0. Four unicompartmental knee replacements required revision for unexplained pain, deep infection, aseptic loosening and bearing dislocation. Minimally invasive joint replacement is attractive to both patients and surgeons, but is technically demanding with complications inherent to limited access.
Literature
1.
Ahlback S, (1968) Osteoarthrosis of the knee. A radiographic investigation. Acta Radiol 277:7–71
2.
Carr A, KeyesG et al (1993) Medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. A survival study of the Oxford meniscal knee. Clin Orthop 295:205–213PubMed
3.
Charnley J (1972) The long-term results of low friction arthroplasty of the hip performed as a primary intervention. JBJS 54B:61–76
4.
Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R et al (1998) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Jt Surg Br 80(1):63–69CrossRef
5.
Dunbar MJ, Robertsson O et al (2001) Appropriate questionnaires for knee arthroplasty. Results of a survey of 3,600 patients from the Swedish knee arthroplasty registry. J Bone Jt Surg Br 83(3):339–344CrossRef
6.
Harcourt WG, White SH et al (2001) Specificity of the Oxford knee status questionnaire. The effect of disease of the hip or lumbar spine on patients’ perception of knee disability. J Bone Jt Surg Br 83(3):345–347CrossRef
7.
Knutson K, Lewold S et al (1994) The Swedish knee arthroplasty register. A nation-wide study of 30,003 knees 1976–1992. Acta Orthop Scand 65(4):375–386PubMedCrossRef
8.
Knutson K, Lindstrand A et al (1986) Survival of knee arthroplasties. A nation-wide multicentre investigation of 8,000 cases. J Bone Jt Surg Br 68(5):795–803
9.
Konig A, Scheidler M et al (1997) The need for a dual rating system in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 345:161–167PubMed
10.
Lewold S, Goodman S et al (1995) Oxford meniscal bearing knee versus the Marmor knee in unicompartmental arthroplasty for arthrosis. A Swedish multicenter survival study. J Arthroplasty 10(6):722–731PubMed
11.
Murray DW, Goodfellow JW et al (1998) The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a 10-year survival study. J Bone Jt Surg Br 80(6):983–989CrossRef
12.
Price AJ, Webb J et al (2001) Rapid recovery after Oxford unicompartmental arthroplasty through a short incision. J Arthroplasty 16(8):970–976PubMedCrossRef
13.
Svard UC, Price AJ (2001) Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. A survival analysis of an independent series. J Bone Jt Surg Br 83(2):191–194CrossRef
14.
Weale AE, Halabi OA et al (2001) Perceptions of outcomes after unicompartmental and total knee replacements. Clin Orthop 382:143–153PubMedCrossRef
15.
White SH, Ludkowski PF et al (1991) Anteromedial osteoarthritis of the knee. J Bone Jt Surg Br 73(4):582–586
Metadata
Title
Minimally invasive Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty
A note of caution!
Authors
K. L. Luscombe
J. Lim
P. W. Jones
S. H. White
Publication date
01-06-2007
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
International Orthopaedics / Issue 3/2007
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-006-0202-z

Other articles of this Issue 3/2007

International Orthopaedics 3/2007 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Comparison of the use of the humerus intramedullary nail and dynamic compression plate for the management of diaphyseal fractures of the humerus. A randomised controlled study

Letter to the Editor

Comment to the article “Impaction allograft with cement for the revision of the femoral component. A minimum 39-month follow-up study (SJ Yim et al.)”

Original Paper

Applications of diffusion-weighted MRI in thoracic spinal cord injury without radiographic abnormality

Author’s Reply

Reply to the letter of Dr. AJ Hall concerning “Impaction allograft with cement for the revision of the femoral component. A minimum 39-month follow-up study with the use of the Exeter stem in Asian Hips (S-J Yim et al.)”

Erratum

Percutaneous release of the trigger thumb: is it safe, cheap and effective?

Original Paper

Simultaneous versus sequential one-stage combined anterior and posterior spinal surgery for spinal infections (outcomes and complications)