Vikas G Dadhich¹*, Ishwar Bohra² and Rakesh Mahajan²

¹MBBS DNB Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Orthopaedics Dr. B. L. Kapur Memorial Hospital, New Delhi, India
²MS Orthopaedics, Senior Consultant, Department of Orthopaedics Dr. B. L. Kapur Memorial Hospital, New Delhi, India

*Corresponding Author: Vikas G Dadhich, MBBS DNB Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Orthopaedics Dr. B. L. Kapur Memorial Hospital, New Delhi, India.

Received: November 22, 2022; Published: December 12, 2022

Abstract

Osteoarthritis can be efficiently described as a group of distinct overlapping diseases which may be attributed to variety of etiological factors, but present with similar biologic, morphologic and clinical outcomes. The disease process may not only affect the underlying articular cartilage but may progress gradually to involve the entire joint including the subchondral bone, capsule, ligaments, synovial membrane and periarticular muscles. In severe progression of disease, knee joint completely loose cartilage and the periarticular bone and soft tissue structures may present with changes which may cause joint pain, swelling and disability.

Keywords: Clinical Outcomes; Mobile Meniscal; Unicondylar Knee Replacement; Osteoarthritis Knee

References

1. Peterssona IF., et al. “Radiographic osteoarthritis of the knee classified by the Ahlback and Kellgren and Lawrence systems for the tibiofemoral joint in people aged 35-54 years with chronic knee pain”. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 56 (1997): 493-496.
2. Fransen M., et al. “The Epidemiology of osteoarthritis in Asia”. International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases 2 (2011): 113-121.
3. Kurtz S., et al. “Projections of Primary and Revision Hipand Knee Arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030”. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery America4 (2007): 780-785.
4. Patil S., et al. “Can normal knee kinematics be restored with unicompartmental knee replacement?” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery America2 (20045): 332.
5. Ivarsson I and Gillquist J. “Rehabilitation after high tibial osteotomy and unicompartmental arthroplasty. A comparative study”. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 266 (1991): 139-144.
6. Chakrabarty G., et al. “Revision of unicompartmenta arthroplasty of the knee: clinical and technical considerations”. The Journal of Arthroplasty 2 (1998): 191-196.
7. Keene GC and Forster MC. “Modem unicompartmental knee replacement”. Current Orthopaedic 19 (2005): 428-445.
8. Insall J and Aglietti P. “A five to seven year follow-up of unicondylar arthroplasty”. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery America 8 (1980): 1329-1337.
9. Goodfellow JW., et al. “Unicompartmental Arthroplasty with Oxford knee”. Oxford (United Kingdom). Oxford University Press (2006): 44-45.
10. Gibson PH and Goodfellow JW. “Stress radiography in degenerative arthritis of the knee”. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British4 (1986): 608-609.
11. Whitehouse SL., et al. “The oxford knee score; problems and pitfalls”. Knee 4 (2005): 287-291.
12. Cabrera Martimbianco AL., et al. “Reliability of the "American knee society score" (AKSS)”. Acta Ortopedica Brasileira 1 (2012): 34-38.
13. McConnell S., et al. “The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC): Review of its utility and measurement properties”. Arthritis and Rheumatology 5 (2001): 453-461.
14. Goodfellow JW., et al. “Unicompartmental Arthroplasty with Oxford knee”. Oxford (United Kingdom). Oxford University Press (2006): 95-114.
15. Oxford Partial Knee Manual of the Surgical Technique (2011): 33-34.
16. Hamilton TW., et al. “Lateral osteophytes do not represent a contraindication to medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a 15-year follow- up”. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 25 (2017): 652-659.
17. Adams AJ., et al. “Preoperative patellofemoral chondromalacia is not a contraindication for fixed-bearing medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty”. The Journal of Arthroplasty 32 (2017): 1786-1791.
18. Yoshida K., et al. “Oxford Phase 3 Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in Japan - Clinical results in greater than one thousand cases over ten years”. Arthroplasty9 (2013): 168-171.
19. Pandit H., et al. “The clinical outcome of minimally invasive Phase 3 Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty-a 15-year follow up of 1000 UKAs”. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British 97-B (2015): 1493-1500.
20. Rees JL., et al. “Minimally invasive oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: functional results at 1 year and the effect of surgical inexperience”. Knee5 (2004): 363-367.
21. Rajasekhar C., et al. “Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty 2- to 12-year results in a community hospital”. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British7 (2004): 983-985.
22. Pandit H Jenkins C., et al. “Minimally invasive oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee replacement: results of 1000 cases”. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British2 (2011): 198-204.
23. Kort NP., et al. “Analysis of Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement using the minimally invasive technique in patients aged 60 and above: an independent prospective series”. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 15 (2007): 1331-1334.
24. Lisowski LA., et al. “Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Medium term results of a minimally invasive surgical procedure”. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 2 (2011): 277-284.
25. Girgis FG., et al. “The cruciate ligaments of the knee joint. Anatomical, functional and experimental analysis”. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 106 (1945): 216-231.
26. Shakespeare D., et al. “Accuracy of implantation of components in the oxford knee using minimally invasive approach”. Knee 6 (2005): 405-409.
27. Gulati A., et al. “Influence of component alignment on outcome for unicompartmental knee replacement”. Knee 3 (2009): 196-199.
28. Clarius M., et al. “Correlation of positioning and clinical results in oxford UKA”. International Orthopaedics 8 (2010): 1145-1151.
29. Westacott CI. “Subchondral bone in the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis”. Biological effects. In: Brandt KD, Doherty M and Lohmander LS. “Osteoarthritis, 2^nd Oxford: Oxford University Press (2003): 133-142.
30. Berenbaum F. “Osteoarthritis as an inflammatory disease (osteoarthritis is no osteoarthrosis!)”. Osteoarthritis Cartilage1 (2013): 16-21.
31. Parmaksizoglu AS., et al. “Short-term results of the oxford plus 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for medial arthritis”. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica 2 (2010): 135-142.
32. Arun B Mullaji., et al. “Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Functional Recovery and Radiographic Results with a Minimally Invasive Technique”. The Journal of Arthroplasty4 (2007): 7-11.
33. Müller PE., et al. “Influence of minimally invasive surgery on implant positioning and the functional outcome for medial compartmental knee arthroplasty”. Journal of Arthroplasty 3 (2004): 296-301.
34. Martinez-Victorio P., et al. “Clinical and radiological assessment of unicompartmental knee prostheses implanted with a minimally invasivetechnique”. Revista Española de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología (English Edition) 3 (2009): 146-56.

Citation

Citation: Vikas G Dadhich., et al. “Clinical Outcomes of Mobile Meniscal Bearing Unicondylar Knee Replacement in Medial Compartment Osteoarthritis Knee, A Prospective Study”.Acta Scientific Orthopaedics 6.1 (2023): 95-112.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2023 Vikas G Dadhich., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.