Top

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

Published in:

01-07-2017 | Orthopaedic Surgery

The influence of different sets of surgical instrumentation in Oxford UKA on bearing size and component position

Authors: Tilman Walker, Pascal Heinemann, Thomas Bruckner, Marcus R. Streit, Stefan Kinkel, Tobias Gotterbarm

Published in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery | Issue 7/2017

Abstract

Introduction

The Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (OUKA) has been proven to be an effective treatment for anteromedial osteoarthritis of the knee joint. New instrumentation has been introduced to improve the reproducibility of implant positioning and to minimize bone loss during tibial resection (Oxford Microplasty; Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, Indiana, USA).

Methods

To assess the effect of the new instrumentation, we retrospectively evaluated the postoperative radiographs and surgical records of 300 OUKAs in three consecutive cohorts of patients. The first cohort consists of the first 100 minimal invasive implantations of the OUKA using the conventional phase III instrumentation, the second cohort consists of the 100 most recent minimal invasive OUKA with the conventional phase III instrumentation and the third cohort consists of the first 100 minimal invasive OUKA using the new Oxford Microplasty instrumentation.

Results

Mean bearing thickness was statistically significant and lower in OUKA with use of the updated instrumentation than with the conventional instrumentation (p = 0.01 and p = 0.04). Additionally, statistically significant and more femoral components were aligned within the accepted range of tolerance in both the coronal and the sagittal plane with use of the updated instrumentation compared to the conventional phase III instrumentation in group A (p = 0.029 and p = 0.038) and in the sagittal plane with use of the updated instrumentation compared to the conventional phase III instrumentation in group B (p = 0.002).

Conclusion

The new modified instrumentation seems to be an effective tool to reduce the risk of malalignment of the femoral component in the coronal and in the sagittal plane compared to the conventional phase III instrumentation. Furthermore, the instrumentation is also effective in determining an adequate level of tibial resection and thus avoiding unnecessary bone loss.

Sah AP, Scott RD (2007) Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty through a medial approach. Study with an average five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(9):1948–1954. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.01457 PubMed

Engh GA (2002) Orthopaedic crossfire–can we justify unicondylar arthroplasty as a temporizing procedure? in the affirmative. J Arthroplasty 17(4 Suppl 1):54–55CrossRefPubMed

Argenson JN, Chevrol-Benkeddache Y, Aubaniac JM (2002) Modern unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cement: a three to ten-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-A(12):2235–2239CrossRefPubMed

Berger RA, Meneghini RM, Jacobs JJ, Sheinkop MB, Della Valle CJ, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO (2005) Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum of ten years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(5):999–1006. doi:10.2106/JBJS.C.00568 CrossRefPubMed

Robertsson O, Borgquist L, Knutson K, Lewold S, Lidgren L (1999) Use of unicompartmental instead of tricompartmental prostheses for unicompartmental arthrosis in the knee is a cost-effective alternative. 15,437 primary tricompartmental prostheses were compared with 10,624 primary medial or lateral unicompartmental prostheses. Acta Orthop Scand 70(2):170–175CrossRefPubMed

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(4):969–974. doi:10.1007/s00264-008-0585-0 CrossRefPubMed

Jarvenpaa J, Kettunen J, Miettinen H, Kroger H (2010) The clinical outcome of revision knee replacement after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty: 8–17 years follow-up study of 49 patients. Int Orthop 34(5):649–653. doi:10.1007/s00264-009-0811-4 CrossRefPubMed

Pandit H, Jenkins C, Barker K, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2006) The Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement using a minimally-invasive approach. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88(1):54–60. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.88B1.17114 CrossRefPubMed

Price AJ, Svard U (2011) A second decade lifetable survival analysis of the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(1):174–179. doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1506-2 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Rees JL, Price AJ, Beard DJ, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2004) Minimally invasive Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: functional results at 1 year and the effect of surgical inexperience. Knee 11(5):363–367. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2003.12.006 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Song MH, Kim BH, Ahn SJ, Yoo SH, Lee MS (2009) Early complications after minimally invasive mobile-bearing medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 24(8):1281–1284. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2009.07.012 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Hurst JM, Berend KR, Adams JB, Lombardi AV Jr (2015) Radiographic comparison of mobile-bearing partial knee single-PEG versus twin-PEG design. J Arthroplasty 30(3):475–478. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2014.10.015 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Pandit H, Hamilton TW, Jenkins C, Mellon SJ, Dodd CA, Murray DW (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(11):1493–1500. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.97B11.35634 CrossRefPubMed

14.

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

15.

Gulati A, Chau R, Simpson DJ, Dodd CA, Gill HS, Murray DW (2009) Influence of component alignment on outcome for unicompartmental knee replacement. Knee 16(3):196–199. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2008.11.001 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Clarius M, Hauck C, Seeger JB, Pritsch M, Merle C, Aldinger PR (2010) Correlation of positioning and clinical results in Oxford UKA. Int Orthop 34(8):1145–1151. doi:10.1007/s00264-009-0881-3 CrossRefPubMed

17.

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. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2005.03.003 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Jung KA, Kim SJ, Lee SC, Hwang SH, Ahn NK (2010) Accuracy of implantation during computer-assisted minimally invasive Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a comparison with a conventional instrumented technique. Knee 17(6):387–391. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2009.11.003 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Kim JG, Kasat NS, Bae JH, Kim SJ, Oh SM, Lim HC (2012) The radiological parameters correlated with the alignment of the femoral component after Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94(11):1499–1505. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.94B11.29217 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Hurst JM, Berend KR (2014) Mobile-bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasty: the Oxford experience. Clin Sports Med 33(1):105–121. doi:10.1016/j.csm.2013.06.004 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Goodfellow J, O’Connor J, Dodd C, Murray D (2006) Design of the Oxford Knee. In: Goodfellow J, O’Connor J, Dodd C, Murray D (eds) Unicompartmental arthroplasty with the Oxford knee. Oxford University, Oxford, pp 7–29

22.

Morris MJ, Frye BM, Ekpo TE, Berend KR (2012) Unicompartmental knee replacement with new Oxford instruments. Oper Tech Orthop 22(4):189–195. doi:10.1053/j.oto.2012.11.003 CrossRef

23.

Robinson BJ, Rees JL, Price AJ, Beard DJ, Murray DW, McLardy Smith P, Dodd CA (2002) Dislocation of the bearing of the Oxford lateral unicompartmental arthroplasty. A radiological assessment. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84(5):653–657CrossRefPubMed

24.

Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH, Shastri S, Jacoby SM (2002) Insall Award paper. Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today? Clin Orthop Relat Res 404:7–13CrossRef

25.

Kim SJ, Bae JH, Lim HC (2012) Factors affecting the postoperative limb alignment and clinical outcome after Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 27(6):1210–1215. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2011.12.011 CrossRefPubMed

26.

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

27.

Goodfellow J, O’Connor J, Murray DW (2002) The Oxford meniscal unicompartmental knee. The journal of knee surgery 15(4):240–246PubMed

28.

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

29.

Tu Y, Xue H, Ma T, Wen T, Yang T, Zhang H, Cai M (2016) Superior femoral component alignment can be achieved with Oxford microplasty instrumentation after minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. doi:10.1007/s00167-016-4173-3 PubMed

30.

Psychoyios V, Crawford RW, O’Connor JJ, Murray DW (1998) Wear of congruent meniscal bearings in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a retrieval study of 16 specimens. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80(6):976–982CrossRefPubMed

31.

Kort NP, van Raay JJ, Thomassen BJ (2007) Alignment of the femoral component in a mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study in 10 cadaver femora. Knee 14(4):280–283. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2007.04.007 CrossRefPubMed

32.

Fisher DA, Watts M, Davis KE (2003) Implant position in knee surgery: a comparison of minimally invasive, open unicompartmental, and total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 18(7 Suppl 1):2–8CrossRefPubMed

33.

Koh IJ, Kim JH, Jang SW, Kim MS, Kim C, In Y (2016) Are the Oxford((R)) medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty new instruments reducing the bearing dislocation risk while improving components relationships? A case control study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 102(2):183–187. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2015.11.015 CrossRefPubMed

34.

Ma B, Long W, Rudan JF, Ellis RE (2006) Three-dimensional analysis of alignment error in using femoral intramedullary guides in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 21(2):271–278. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2004.07.012 CrossRefPubMed

35.

Rosenberger RE, Fink C, Quirbach S, Attal R, Tecklenburg K, Hoser C (2008) The immediate effect of navigation on implant accuracy in primary mini-invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16(12):1133–1140. doi:10.1007/s00167-008-0618-7 CrossRefPubMed

Title: The influence of different sets of surgical instrumentation in Oxford UKA on bearing size and component position
Authors: Tilman Walker
Pascal Heinemann
Thomas Bruckner
Marcus R. Streit
Stefan Kinkel
Tobias Gotterbarm
Publication date: 01-07-2017
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery / Issue 7/2017
Print ISSN: 0936-8051
Electronic ISSN: 1434-3916
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2702-2

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

The influence of different sets of surgical instrumentation in Oxford UKA on bearing size and component position

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 7/2017

Stability of capsule closure and postoperative anterior knee pain after medial parapatellar approach in TKA

Return to sporting activity after osteochondral autograft transplantation for Freiberg disease in young athletes

Effect and safety of early weight-bearing on the outcome after open-wedge high tibial osteotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Complications after surgical treatment of femoral neck fractures in men with alcohol dependence syndrome: retrospective register analysis of 154 cases

Effect of collapse on the deformity of the femoral head–neck junction in osteonecrosis of the femoral head

The effect of a combined thoracic and soft-tissue trauma on blood flow and tissue formation in fracture healing in rats