The Knee
Volume 17, Issue 6 , Pages 392-397, December 2010

Mobile bearing dislocation in lateral unicompartmental knee replacement

  • H. Pandit

      Affiliations

    • Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Headington, Oxford, UK
    • Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Headington, Oxford, UK
  • ,
  • C. Jenkins

      Affiliations

    • Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Headington, Oxford, UK
  • ,
  • D.J. Beard

      Affiliations

    • Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Headington, Oxford, UK
  • ,
  • A.J. Price

      Affiliations

    • Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Headington, Oxford, UK
    • Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Headington, Oxford, UK
  • ,
  • H.S. Gill

      Affiliations

    • Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Headington, Oxford, UK
  • ,
  • C.A.F. Dodd

      Affiliations

    • Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Headington, Oxford, UK
  • ,
  • D.W. Murray

      Affiliations

    • Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Headington, Oxford, UK
    • Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Headington, Oxford, UK
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre NHS Trust, Headington, Oxford, UK OX3 7LD, UK. Tel.: +44 1865 227457; fax: +44 1865 227671.

Received 31 March 2009; received in revised form 19 October 2009; accepted 19 October 2009. published online 18 November 2009.

Abstract 

Despite the theoretical advantages of mobile bearings for lateral unicompartmental replacement (UKR), the failure rate in the initial published series of lateral Oxford UKR's was unacceptably high. The main cause of failure was bearing dislocation. To address this problem we first modified the surgical technique and then introduced a new design with a convex domed tibial plateau. This paper presents the results of these changes.

In the original series (n=53), implanted using a standard open approach, there were six dislocations, all of which occurred in the first year. Five of the dislocations were primary and one was secondary to trauma. In the second series (n=65), with the modified technique, there were three dislocations, all of which were primary and occurred in the second and third year. In the third series (n=101, 69 with a minimum 1-year follow-up), with the modified technique and the domed tibial plateau, there was one dislocation which was secondary to trauma and occurred in the second year. At 4years the dislocation rates in the three series were 11%, 5% and 1.7% and the primary dislocation rates were 10%, 5% and 0%. Both the overall and the primary dislocation rates were significantly different (p=0.04 and p=0.03) in the different series.

The combination of the modified surgical technique and new design with a domed tibial component appears to have reduced the early dislocation rate to an acceptable level.

Keywords: Lateral unicompartmental knee replacement, Mobile bearing

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0968-0160(09)00208-7

doi:10.1016/j.knee.2009.10.007

The Knee
Volume 17, Issue 6 , Pages 392-397, December 2010