Cargando…

Implant Overhang after Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Oxford Prosthesis versus Miller-Galante II Prosthesis

PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study is to compare the prevalence of implant overhang between the Oxford and the Miller-Galante II (M-G II) unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) prostheses and determine whether overhang is associated with postoperative clinical results. MATERIALS AND METHODS...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kim, Geon-Hyeong, Park, Bum-Yong, Bae, Tae-Yong, Song, Kwang-Yun, In, Yong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Knee Society 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4061411/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24944973
http://dx.doi.org/10.5792/ksrr.2014.26.2.82
_version_ 1782321487366062080
author Kim, Geon-Hyeong
Park, Bum-Yong
Bae, Tae-Yong
Song, Kwang-Yun
In, Yong
author_facet Kim, Geon-Hyeong
Park, Bum-Yong
Bae, Tae-Yong
Song, Kwang-Yun
In, Yong
author_sort Kim, Geon-Hyeong
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study is to compare the prevalence of implant overhang between the Oxford and the Miller-Galante II (M-G II) unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) prostheses and determine whether overhang is associated with postoperative clinical results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed one hundred and seven UKAs which consisted of 37 Oxford UKAs and 70 M-G II. Overhang was considered present if ≥3 mm overhang was observed in any zone. The range of motion, the Knee Society scores and the Western Ontario and McMaster scores were compared after a mean follow-up duration of 48 months. RESULTS: Thirty three of 107 knees (30.8%) had overhang in at least one zone of the femoral or tibial component. In the tibial side, there were no significant differences between the groups in component overhang in each zone. In the femoral side, the Oxford UKA group showed a significantly higher prevalence of the posterior overhang of the femoral component (19/37, 51.4%) than did the M-G II UKA group (3/70, 4.3%; p<0.001). However, no significant differences in clinical results were observed between the two groups. There were also no significant differences in clinical results between the overhang and the non-overhang groups. CONCLUSIONS: Posterior overhang of the femoral component was highly prevalent in Oxford UKA patients. However, posterior overhang of the femoral component had no significant relationship with postoperative clinical results in both Oxford and M-G II UKAs at a mean of 48 months follow-up.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4061411
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher The Korean Knee Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40614112014-06-18 Implant Overhang after Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Oxford Prosthesis versus Miller-Galante II Prosthesis Kim, Geon-Hyeong Park, Bum-Yong Bae, Tae-Yong Song, Kwang-Yun In, Yong Knee Surg Relat Res Original Article PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study is to compare the prevalence of implant overhang between the Oxford and the Miller-Galante II (M-G II) unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) prostheses and determine whether overhang is associated with postoperative clinical results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed one hundred and seven UKAs which consisted of 37 Oxford UKAs and 70 M-G II. Overhang was considered present if ≥3 mm overhang was observed in any zone. The range of motion, the Knee Society scores and the Western Ontario and McMaster scores were compared after a mean follow-up duration of 48 months. RESULTS: Thirty three of 107 knees (30.8%) had overhang in at least one zone of the femoral or tibial component. In the tibial side, there were no significant differences between the groups in component overhang in each zone. In the femoral side, the Oxford UKA group showed a significantly higher prevalence of the posterior overhang of the femoral component (19/37, 51.4%) than did the M-G II UKA group (3/70, 4.3%; p<0.001). However, no significant differences in clinical results were observed between the two groups. There were also no significant differences in clinical results between the overhang and the non-overhang groups. CONCLUSIONS: Posterior overhang of the femoral component was highly prevalent in Oxford UKA patients. However, posterior overhang of the femoral component had no significant relationship with postoperative clinical results in both Oxford and M-G II UKAs at a mean of 48 months follow-up. The Korean Knee Society 2014-06 2014-05-30 /pmc/articles/PMC4061411/ /pubmed/24944973 http://dx.doi.org/10.5792/ksrr.2014.26.2.82 Text en Copyright © 2014 KOREAN KNEE SOCIETY http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Kim, Geon-Hyeong
Park, Bum-Yong
Bae, Tae-Yong
Song, Kwang-Yun
In, Yong
Implant Overhang after Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Oxford Prosthesis versus Miller-Galante II Prosthesis
title Implant Overhang after Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Oxford Prosthesis versus Miller-Galante II Prosthesis
title_full Implant Overhang after Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Oxford Prosthesis versus Miller-Galante II Prosthesis
title_fullStr Implant Overhang after Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Oxford Prosthesis versus Miller-Galante II Prosthesis
title_full_unstemmed Implant Overhang after Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Oxford Prosthesis versus Miller-Galante II Prosthesis
title_short Implant Overhang after Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Oxford Prosthesis versus Miller-Galante II Prosthesis
title_sort implant overhang after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: oxford prosthesis versus miller-galante ii prosthesis
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4061411/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24944973
http://dx.doi.org/10.5792/ksrr.2014.26.2.82
work_keys_str_mv AT kimgeonhyeong implantoverhangafterunicompartmentalkneearthroplastyoxfordprosthesisversusmillergalanteiiprosthesis
AT parkbumyong implantoverhangafterunicompartmentalkneearthroplastyoxfordprosthesisversusmillergalanteiiprosthesis
AT baetaeyong implantoverhangafterunicompartmentalkneearthroplastyoxfordprosthesisversusmillergalanteiiprosthesis
AT songkwangyun implantoverhangafterunicompartmentalkneearthroplastyoxfordprosthesisversusmillergalanteiiprosthesis
AT inyong implantoverhangafterunicompartmentalkneearthroplastyoxfordprosthesisversusmillergalanteiiprosthesis