Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Revision nach unikondylärer Knieprothese

Revision after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Orthopäde Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Unikondyläre Kniegelenkendoprothesen werden seit Jahren sehr erfolgreich und mit steigender Häufigkeit zur Therapie der isolierten unikompartimentellen Gonarthrose eingesetzt. Gegenüber der Therapiealternative des totalen Kniegelenkersatzes gibt es zahlreiche Vorteile, wie die kürzere Rehabilitation, den geringeren Blutverlust, die besseren funktionellen Ergebnisse und die geringere Infektionsrate. Als das Argument gegen den unikondylären Gelenkersatz wird die erhöhte Revisionsrate angesehen. Der folgende Beitrag gibt eine Übersicht über mögliche Ursachen und Revisionsstrategien. Diese Arbeit basiert auf einer selektiven Literaturrecherche mittels PubMed unter Einbeziehung relevanter Printmedien. Eigene klinische Erfahrungen werden ebenfalls berücksichtigt.

Abstract

Unicompartmental arthroplasty is an efficient and approved treatment option of unicompartmental arthritis of the knee, being performed with increasing frequency worldwide. Compared to total knee replacement, there are several advantages such as faster recovery, lower blood loss, better functional outcome and lower infection rates. However, higher revision rates are a frequent argument against the use of unicompartmental arthroplasty. The following article gives an overview of failure mechanisms and strategies for revision arthroplasty. This article is based on a selective literature review including PubMed and relevant print media. Our own clinical experience is considered as well.

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

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5

Literatur

  1. Ackroyd CE (2003) Medial compartment arthroplasty of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br 85:937–942

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 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 87:999–1006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bergeson AG, Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr, Hurst JM, Morris MJ, Sneller MA (2013) Medial mobile bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: early survivorship and analysis of failures in 1000 consecutive cases. J Arthroplasty 28:172–175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brockett CL, Jennings LM, Fisher J (2011) The wear of fixed and mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacements. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 225:511–519

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Cartier P, Sanouiller JL, Grelsamer RP (1996) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty surgery. 10-year minimum follow-up period. J Arthroplasty 11:782–788

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Chakrabarty G, Newman JH, Ackroyd CE (1998) Revision of unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee. Clinical and technical considerations. J Arthroplasty 13:191–196

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Citak M, Dersch K, Kamath AF, Haasper C, Gehrke T, Kendoff D (2014) Common causes of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a single-centre analysis of four hundred and seventy one cases. Int Orthop 38(5):961–965

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Clarius M, Haas D, Aldinger PR, Jaeger S, Jakubowitz E, Seeger JB (2010) Periprosthetic tibial fractures in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty as a function of extended sagittal saw cuts: an experimental study. Knee 17:57–60

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Clarius M, Hauck C, Seeger JB, James A, Murray DW, Aldinger PR (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 33:1585–1590

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Clarius M, Seeger JB, Jaeger S, Mohr G, Bitsch RG (2012) The importance of pulsed lavage on interface temperature and ligament tension force in cemented unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 27:372–376

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Dalury DF, Fisher DA, Adams MJ, Gonzales RA (2009) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compares favorably to total knee arthroplasty in the same patient. Orthopedics 32

  12. Dudley TE, Gioe TJ, Sinner P, Mehle S (2008) Registry outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revisions. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:1666–1670

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Epinette JA, Brunschweiler B, Mertl P, Mole D, Cazenave A (2012) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty modes of failure: wear is not the main reason for failure: a multicentre study of 418 failed knees. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 98:124–130

  14. Foran JR, Brown NM, Della Valle CJ, Berger RA, Galante JO (2013) Long-term survivorship and failure modes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:102–108

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Furnes O, Espehaug B, Lie SA, Vollset SE, Engesaeter LB, Havelin LI (2007) Failure mechanisms after unicompartmental and tricompartmental primary knee replacement with cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:519–525

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2006) Unicompartmental arthroplasty with the Oxford Knee. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp52–56

  17. Hang JR, Stanford TE, Graves SE, Davidson DC, de Steiger RN, Miller LN (2010) Outcome of revision of unicompartmental knee replacement. Acta Orthop 81:95–98

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Hauptmann SM, Weber P, Glaser C, Birkenmaier C, Jansson V, Muller PE (2008) Free bone cement fragments after minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: an underappreciated problem. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16:770–775

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hernigou P, Deschamps G (2004) Alignment influences wear in the knee after medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 423:161–165

  20. Hernigou P, Deschamps G (2002) Patellar impingement following unicompartmental arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84:1132–1137

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jackson M, Sarangi PP, Newman JH (1994) Revision total knee arthroplasty. Comparison of outcome following primary proximal tibial osteotomy or unicompartmental arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 9:539–542

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Johnson S, Jones P, Newman JH (2007) The survivorship and results of total knee replacements converted from unicompartmental knee replacements. Knee 14:154–157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kerens B, Boonen B, Schotanus MG, Lacroix H, Emans PJ, Kort NP (2013) Revision from unicompartmental to total knee replacement: the clinical outcome depends on reason for revision. J Bone Joint Surg Br 95:1204–1208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Khan Z, Nawaz SZ, Kahane S, Esler C, Chatterji U (2013) Conversion of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: the challenges and need for augments. Acta Orthop Belg 79:699–705

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Koskinen E, Paavolainen P, Eskelinen A, Pulkkinen P, Remes V (2007) Unicondylar knee replacement for primary osteoarthritis: a prospective follow-up study of 1,819 patients from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 78:128–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kretzer JP, Jakubowitz E, Reinders J, Lietz E, Moradi B, Hofmann K, Sonntag R (2011) Wear analysis of unicondylar mobile bearing and fixed bearing knee systems: a knee simulator study. Acta Biomater 7:710–715

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lewold S, Robertsson O, Knutson K, Lidgren L (1998) Revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: outcome in 1,135 cases from the Swedish knee arthroplasty study. Acta Orthop Scand 69:469–474

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Marmor L (1988) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Ten- to 13-year follow-up study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 226:14–20

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Monk AP, Keys GW, Murray DW (2009) Loosening of the femoral component after unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91:405–407

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Pandit H, Jenkins C, Beard DJ, Gallagher J, Price AJ, Dodd CA, Goodfellow JW, Murray DW (2009) Cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement shows reduced radiolucency at one year. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91:185–189

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Pandit H, Jenkins C, Gill HS, Barker K, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2011) Minimally invasive Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee replacement: results of 1000 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93:198–204

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Pearse AJ, Hooper GJ, Rothwell A, Frampton C (2010) Survival and functional outcome after revision of a unicompartmental to a total knee replacement: the New Zealand National Joint Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92:508–512

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Price AJ, Svard U (2011) A second decade lifetable survival analysis of the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:174–179

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Rancourt MF, Kemp KA, Plamondon SM, Kim PR, Dervin GF (2012) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasties revised to total knee arthroplasties compared with primary total knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 27:106–110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Rea P, Short A, Pandit H, Price AJ, Kyberd P, Beard DJ, Gill HS, Murray DW (2007) Radiolucency and migration after Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 30:24–27

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Riddle DL, Jiranek WA, McGlynn FJ (2008) Yearly incidence of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the United States. J Arthroplasty 23:408–412

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Robb CA, Matharu GS, Baloch K, Pynsent PB (2013) Revision surgery for failed unicompartmental knee replacement: technical aspects and clinical outcome. Acta Orthop Belg 79:312–317

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Saldanha KA, Keys GW, Svard UC, White SH, Rao C (2007) Revision of Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty – results of a multicentre study. Knee 14:275–279

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Seeger JB, Haas D, Jager S, Rohner E, Tohtz S, Clarius M (2012) Extended sagittal saw cut significantly reduces fracture load in cementless unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compared to cemented tibia plateaus: an experimental cadaver study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:1087–1091

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Seeger JB, Jaeger S, Bitsch RG, Mohr G, Rohner E, Clarius M (2013) The effect of bone lavage on femoral cement penetration and interface temperature during Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95:48–53

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Sierra RJ, Kassel CA, Wetters NG, Berend KR, Della Valle CJ, Lombardi AV (2013) Revision of unicompartmental arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: not always a slam dunk! J Arthroplasty 28:128–132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Svard UC, Price AJ (2001) Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. A survival analysis of an independent series. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83:191–194

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Tibrewal SB, Grant KA, Goodfellow JW (1984) The radiolucent line beneath the tibial components of the Oxford meniscal knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br 66:523–528

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Wynn Jones H, Chan W, Harrison T, Smith TO, Masonda P, Walton NP (2012) Revision of medial Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement to a total knee replacement: similar to a primary? Knee 19:339–343

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor weist auf folgende Beziehungen hin:

M. Clarius ist als Berater für Aesculap und Biomet tätig und erhielt Studienunterstützungen oder andere Drittmittel von Biomet, Aesculap und Zimmer. Er ist als Referent für Aesculap, Biomet, DePuy, Bayer und Zimmer tätig oder tätig gewesen. J. Martin ist als Referent für Biomet tätig. G. Mohr gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Alle im vorliegenden Manuskript beschriebenen Untersuchungen am Menschen wurden mit Zustimmung der zuständigen Ethik-Kommission, im Einklang mit nationalem Recht sowie gemäß der Deklaration von Helsinki von 1975 (in der aktuellen, überarbeiteten Fassung) durchgeführt. Von allen beteiligten Patienten liegt eine Einverständniserklärung vor.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopädie, Orthopädische Chirurgie und Unfallchirurgie, Vulpius Klinik, Vulpiusstraße 29, 74906, Bad Rappenau, Deutschland

    G. Mohr, J. Martin &  M. Clarius

Authors
  1. G. Mohr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Clarius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Clarius.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mohr, G., Martin, J. & Clarius, M. Revision nach unikondylärer Knieprothese. Orthopäde 43, 883–890 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-014-3013-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-014-3013-8

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation