metricas
covid
Buscar en
Revista Española de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología (English Edition)
Toda la web
Inicio Revista Española de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología (English Edition) Clinical and radiological assessment of unicompartmental knee prostheses implant...
Información de la revista
Vol. 53. Núm. 3.
Páginas 146-156 (mayo - junio 2009)
Compartir
Compartir
Descargar PDF
Más opciones de artículo
Vol. 53. Núm. 3.
Páginas 146-156 (mayo - junio 2009)
Original papers
Acceso a texto completo
Clinical and radiological assessment of unicompartmental knee prostheses implanted with a minimally invasive technique
Valoración clínica y radiológica de las prótesis unicompartimentales de rodilla implantadas con técnica mínimamente invasiva
Visitas
1373
P. Martínez-Victorio
Autor para correspondencia
pmartinezvi@secot.es

Corresponding author.
, M. Clavel Sainz-Nolla, P. Puertas García, J. Avellaneda Guirao, R. Cano Gea, A. Escámez Pérez
Department of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, Virgen de la Arrixaca University Hospital, Murcia, Spain
Este artículo ha recibido
Información del artículo
Resumen
Bibliografía
Descargar PDF
Estadísticas
Abstract
Purpose

To assess the radiological position and the short-term clinical outcome of a series of unicompartmental knee prostheses implanted through a small incision.

Materials and methods

Retrospective review of the first 44 arthroplasties of this kind performed in our Department with a minimum 1-year follow-up. The study includes an analysis of the relationship between the result obtained in terms of the American Knee Society score and the patients’ age, gender, body mass index, diagnosis, number of previous surgeries and 25 radiological variables recorded on the basis of anteroposterior, lateral and axial views. Any errors in the positioning of each of the components on the different planes were also determined.

Results

The results obtained are significantly poorer the higher the body mass index (r=- 0.42; p=0.01) and the higher the degree of posterior inclination of the tibial component (r=-0.34; p=0.02); this difference is statistically significant from 8° (t=-2.15; p=0.04) onwards. The greatest variability in terms of prosthetic placement is found in the degree of rotation of the tibial component on the axial plane and in the flexion-extension of the femoral component on the sagittal plane. Surgical expertise is crucial when it comes to sound prosthetic placement, with significantly fewer errors being committed by surgeons who perform the procedure habitually (t=2,06; p=0,04).

Conclusions

Unidcondylar knee replacement is an attractive yet technically demanding therapeutic alternative for unicompartmental pathology, which is associated to a mandatory learning curve. In addition to appropriate patient selection, correct implant placement is crucial to obtain a satisfactory end result.

Keywords:
Knee
Prosthesis
Unicompartmental
Minimally invasive surgery
Resumen
Objetivos

Valorar la posición radiológica y el resultado clínico a corto plazo de una serie de prótesis unicompartimentales de rodilla implantadas mediante mínima incisión.

Material y método

Revisión retrospectiva de las primeras 44 artroplastias de este tipo realizadas en el servicio de este hospital con un seguimiento mínimo de un año. Se analizó la relación existente entre el resultado obtenido según la escala de la American Knee Society y la edad del sujeto, el sexo, el indice de masa corporal (IMC), el diagnóstico, el número de cirugías previas y 25 variables radiológicas registradas a partir de proyecciones anteroposterior, lateral y axial. Se determinaron, a su vez, los errores en el posicionamiento de cada uno de los componentes en todos los planos.

Resultados

Se encontraron resultados significativamente peores cuanto mayor era el IMC (coeficiente de correlación [r] = -0,42; p = 0,01) y cuanto mayor era el grado de inclinación posterior del componente tibial (r = -0,34; p = 0,02), estadísticamente a partir de los 81 (t = -2,15; p = 0,04). La mayor variabilidad en la colocación protésica se encontró en el grado de rotación del componente tibial en el plano axial y en el grado de flexoextensión del femoral en el plano sagital. La experiencia quirúrgica es determinante en la implantación correcta de la prótesis, y se han demostrado menores errores de forma significativa cuanto mayor número de cirugías se realizara (t = 2,06; p = 0,04).

Conclusiones

La prótesis unicondílea de rodilla es una alternativa terapéutica atractiva para la enfermedad unicompartimental, aunque es técnicamente demandante y necesita una curva de aprendizaje obligada. Además de una buena selección del sujeto, la implantación correcta de los componentes resulta fundamental para un resultado final satisfactorio.

Palabras clave:
Rodilla
Prótesis
Unicompartimental
Cirugía mínimamente invasiva
El Texto completo está disponible en PDF
References
[1.]
J. Insall, P. Aglietti.
A five to seven-year follow-up of unicondylar arthroplasty.
J Bone Joint Surg Am, 62A (1980), pp. 1329-1337
[2.]
P.A. Keblish, J.L. Briard.
Mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: A 2 center study with an 11-year (mean) follow-up.
J Arthroplasty, 19 (2004), pp. 87-94
[3.]
R. Fernández Fernández, J.M. Ordóñez Parra.
El papel actual de la osteotomía de rodilla en la artrosis.
Rev Ortop Traumatol, 5 (2002), pp. 465-475
[4.]
J.N. Argenson, Y. Benkeddache, J. Aubaniac.
Modern unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cement. A three to ten-year follow-up study.
J Bone Joint Surg Am, 84A (2002), pp. 2235-2239
[5.]
K.Y. Yang, M.C. Wang, S.J. Yeo, N.N. Lo.
Minimally invasive unicondylar versus total condylar knee arthroplasty. Early results of a matched-pair comparison.
Singapore Med J, 44 (2003), pp. 559-562
[6.]
T. Griffin, N. Rowden, D. Morgan, R. Atkinson, P. Woodruff, G. Maddern.
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for the treatment of unicompartmental osteoarthrosis: A systematic study.
ANZ J Sug, 77 (2007), pp. 214-221
[7.]
C. Stukenborg-Colsman, C.J. Wirth, D. Lazovic, A. Wefer.
High tibial osteotomy versus unicompartmental joint replacement in unicompartmental knee joint osteoarthritis: 7-10 year follow-up prospective randomised study.
Knee, 8 (2001), pp. 187-194
[8.]
W.R. Kennedy, R.P. White.
Unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee: Postoperative alignment and its influence on overall results.
Clin Orthop, 221 (1987), pp. 278-285
[9.]
S.C. Kozinn, R. Scott.
Unicondylar knee arthroplasty.
J Bone Joint Surg Br, 71B (1989), pp. 145-150
[10.]
D.C. Markel, K. Sutton.
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Troubleshooting implant positioning and technical failures.
J Knee Surg, 18 (2005), pp. 96-101
[11.]
O. Furnes, B. Espehaug, S.A. Lie, S.E. Vollset, L.B. Engesaeter, L.I. Havelin.
Failure mechanisms after unicompartmental and tricompartmental primary knee replacement with cement.
J Bone Joint Surg Am, 89A (2007), pp. 519-525
[12.]
A.J. Price, J. Webb, H. Topf, C.A. Dodd, J.W. Goodfellow, D.W. Murray.
Rapid recovery after Oxford unicompartmental arthro-plasty through a short incision.
J Arthroplasty, 16 (2001), pp. 970-976
[13.]
A.J. Price, J.C. Waite, U. Svard.
Long-term clinical results of the medial Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
Clin Orthop Relat Res, 435 (2005), pp. 171-180
[14.]
R.A. Berger, R.M. Meneghini, J.J. Jacobs, M.B. Sheinkop, C.J. Della Valle, A.G. Rosenberg.
Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum of ten years of follow-up.
J Bone Joint Surg Am, 87A (2005), pp. 999-1006
[15.]
D. Naudie, J. Guerin, D.A. Parker, R.B. Bourne, C.H. Rorabeck.
Medial unicompartmenal knee arthroplasty with the Miller-Galante prosthesis.
J Bone Joint Surg Am, 86A (2004), pp. 1931-1935
[16.]
D.W. Pennington, J.J. Swienckowski, W.B. Lutes, G.N. Drake.
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients sixty years of age or younger.
J Bone Joint Surg Am, 85A (2003), pp. 1968-1973
[17.]
J.Y. Jenny, C. Boeri.
Accuracy of implantation of a unicompartmental total knee arthroplasty with 2 different instrumentations: A case-controlled comparative study.
J Arthroplasty, 17 (2002), pp. 1016-1020
[18.]
O. Robertsson, K. Knutson, S. Lewold, L. Lidgren.
The routine of surgical management reduces failure after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
J Bone Joint Surg Br, 83B (2001), pp. 45-49
[19.]
R.H. Emerson, L.L. Higgins.
A comparison of highly instrumented and minimally instrumented unicompartmental knee prostheses.
Clin Orthop Relat Res, 428 (2004), pp. 153-157
[20.]
P.E. Müller, C. Pellengahr, M. Witt, J. Kircher, H.J. Refior, V. Jansson.
Influence of minimally invasive surgery on implant positioning and the functional outcome for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
J Arthroplasty, 19 (2004), pp. 296-301
[21.]
F. Voss, M.B. Sheinkop, J.O. Galante, R.M. Barden, A.G. Rosenberg.
Miller-Galante unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at 2 to 5 year follow-up evaluations.
J Arthroplasty, 10 (1995), pp. 764-771
[22.]
J.J. Swienckowski, D.W. Pennington.
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients sixty years of age or younger.
J Bone Joint Surg Am, 86A (2004), pp. 131-142
[23.]
O.B. Tabor, O.B. Tabor, M. Bernard, J.Y. Wan.
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Long-term sucess in middle-age and obese patients.
J Surg Orthop Adv, 14 (2005), pp. 59-63
[24.]
A. Lindstrand, A. Stenström, L. Ryd, S. Toksvig-Larsen.
The introduction period of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is critical: A clinical, clinical multicentered, and radiostereometric study of 251 Duracon unicompartmental knee arthroplasties.
J Arthroplasty, 15 (2000), pp. 608-616
[25.]
P. Hernigou, G. Deschamps.
Alignment influences wear in the knee after medial unicompartmental arthroplasty.
Clin Orthop Relat Res, 423 (2004), pp. 161-165
[26.]
D.A. Fisher, M. Watts, K.E. Davis.
Implant position in knee surgery: A comparison of minimally invasive, open unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty.
J Arthroplasty, 18 (2003), pp. 2-8
[27.]
K.AN. Saldanha, G.W. Keys, U.CG. Svard, S.H. White, C. Rao.
Revision of Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty–results of a multicentre study.
[28.]
M.B. Collier, T.H. Eickmann, F. Sukezaki, J.P. McAuley, G.A. Engh.
Patient, implant, and alignment factors associated with revision of medial compartment unicondylar arthroplasty.
J Arthroplasty, 21 (2006), pp. 108-115
[29.]
W.N. Levine, R.M. Ozuna, R.D. Scott, T.S. Thornhill.
Conversion of failed modern unicompartmental arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty.
J Arthroplasty, 117 (1996), pp. 797-801
[30.]
J.N. Argenson, R.D. Komistek, J.M. Aubaniac, D.A. Dennis, E.J. Northcut, D. Anderson.
In vivo determination of knee kinematics for subjects implanted with a unicompartmental arthroplasty.
J Arthroplasty, 17 (2002), pp. 1049-1054
Copyright © 2009. Sociedad Española de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología (SECOT). All rights reserved
Descargar PDF
Opciones de artículo
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos

Quizás le interese:
10.1016/j.recote.2021.08.002
No mostrar más