O2331 THE OXFORD UNICOMPARTMENTAL KNEE PROSTHESIS: A 2–14 YEAR FOLLOW-UP

Cottenie Dominique; P. Vorlat; P. Byn; K.F. Almqvist; R. Verdonk

doi:10.1302/0301-620X.86BSUPP_III.0860308d

Article alerts Social media

Current issue

O2331 THE OXFORD UNICOMPARTMENTAL KNEE PROSTHESIS: A 2–14 YEAR FOLLOW-UP

Cottenie Dominique
P. Vorlat
P. Byn
K.F. Almqvist
R. Verdonk

O2331 THE OXFORD UNICOMPARTMENTAL KNEE PROSTHESIS: A 2–14 YEAR FOLLOW-UP

Dominique C, Vorlat P, Byn P, Almqvist K, Verdonk R. O2331 THE OXFORD UNICOMPARTMENTAL KNEE PROSTHESIS: A 2–14 YEAR FOLLOW-UP. Orthop Procs. 2004;86-B(SUPP_III):308-308. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.86BSUPP_III.0860308d

Dominique, Cottenie, et al. “O2331 THE OXFORD UNICOMPARTMENTAL KNEE PROSTHESIS: A 2–14 YEAR FOLLOW-UP.” Orthopaedic Proceedings, vol. 86-B, no. SUPP_III, 2004, pp. 308-308., https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.86BSUPP_III.0860308d

Dominique, C., Vorlat, P., Byn, P., Almqvist, K., & Verdonk, R. (2004). O2331 THE OXFORD UNICOMPARTMENTAL KNEE PROSTHESIS: A 2–14 YEAR FOLLOW-UP. Orthopaedic Proceedings, 86-B(SUPP_III), 308-308. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.86BSUPP_III.0860308d

Dominique, C., Vorlat, P., Byn, P., Almqvist, K. and Verdonk, R. (2004) “O2331 THE OXFORD UNICOMPARTMENTAL KNEE PROSTHESIS: A 2–14 YEAR FOLLOW-UP.” Orthopaedic Proceedings, 86-B(SUPP_III), pp. 308-308. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.86BSUPP_III.0860308d

Dominique, Cottenie, P. Vorlat, P. Byn, K.F. Almqvist, and R. Verdonk. “O2331 THE OXFORD UNICOMPARTMENTAL KNEE PROSTHESIS: A 2–14 YEAR FOLLOW-UP.” Orthopaedic Proceedings 86-B, no. SUPP_III (2004): 308-308. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.86BSUPP_III.0860308d

Dominique C, Vorlat P, Byn P, Almqvist K, Verdonk R. O2331 THE OXFORD UNICOMPARTMENTAL KNEE PROSTHESIS: A 2–14 YEAR FOLLOW-UP. Orthop Procs. 2004 Mar 1;86-B(SUPP_III):308-308. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.86BSUPP_III.0860308d

Copy to clipboard

BibTeX

EndNote

RIS

Abstract

Aims: To assess the results of the Oxford unicompartmental knee prosthesis, and compare these with other prostheses. Methods: Ninety-seven prostheses (87 medial; 10 lateral) in 86 patients were evaluated with the HSS (Hospital for Special Surgery) score after 2–14 years (mean follow-up: 6 yrs-9 mos). Results: Five prostheses were lost to follow-up. Eight patients died after a mean of 7 years, none of them had undergone a revision. Fourteen revisions (of which 1 bilateral unicompartmental knee prosthesis), 11 medial and 3 lateral, were performed. The mean HSS-score of the 69 UKPñs is 178.8 (80% excellent, 10% good, 4% fair, 6% poor). Conclusions: With proper patient selection (i.e. degenerative medial unicompartmental arthritis, good range of motion, sedentary occupation and with a light body weight) and a consistent operating technique, the results are good. It is the þrst-choice prosthesis for the relatively young patient (with regard to later revisions). Since we also obtain good results in the elderly, it seems a good choice of treatment in this group.

Theses abstracts were prepared by Professor Dr. Frantz Langlais. Correspondence should be addressed to him at EFORT Central Office, Freihofstrasse 22, CH-8700 Küsnacht, Switzerland.