Advertisement

Implant Choices for Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

  • Matthew P. Siljander
  • Jay S. Croley
  • Donald M. Knapke
Chapter

Abstract

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) design has gone through several iterations since its inception to include cemented versus cementless fixation, modular metal-backed versus all-polyethylene tibial components, and mobile-bearing versus fixed-bearing designs. In direct comparison studies of modern UKA designs, cementless fixation may offer a slight advantage in implant survivorship in addition to shorter operative times. The literature has not provided a consensus on the superiority of all-polyethylene versus metal-backed tibial components or mobile-bearing versus fixed-bearing implants, as each of these design features has inherent advantages and disadvantages.

Keywords

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty Design Cemented, cementless, metal-backed All-polyethylene Mobile bearing Fixed bearing 

References

  1. 1.
    Halawi MJ, Barsoum WK. Unicondylar knee arthroplasty: key concepts. J Clin Orthop Trauma. n.d;8:11–3.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2016.08.010.
  2. 2.
    Liddle AD, Pandit H, Murray DW, Dodd CAF. Cementless unicondylar knee arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 2013;44:261–9, vii.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocl.2013.03.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Joint Registry for England and Wales. 9th Annu Rep 2012.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alosh H, Kayupov E, Insall DVCJ. In: Scott W, editor. Scott surgery of the knee. 6th ed: Elsevier Health Sciences; Philadephia, PA. 2018. p. 1435–45.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pandit H, Murray DW, CAF D. In: Scott W, editor. Insall & scott surgery of the knee. 6th ed: Elsevier Health Sciences; Philadephia, PA. 2018. p. 1446–70.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    McKeever DC. The classic: Tibial plateau prosthesis.1960. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;440:4–8; discussion 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jamali AA, Scott RD, Rubash HE, Freiberg AA. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: past, present, and future. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2009;38:17–23.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jamali AA, Rodricks DJ, Malberg MI, Tria AJ, Rubash HE, Freiberg AA. In: Callaghan JJ, Rosenberg AG, Rubash HE, Simonian PT, Wickiewicz TL, editors. The adult knee. 1st ed: Lipincott Williams & Wilkins; Philadephia, PA. 2002. p. 1111–34.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marmor L. The modular knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1973;94:242–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Borus T, Thornhill T. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008;16:9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kolstad K, Sahlstedt B, Bergström R. Marmor modular knee plateau positioning and prosthesis survival in 55 knees with rheumatoid arthritis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1996;115:17–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Small SR, Berend ME, Ritter MA, Buckley CA, Rogge RD. Metal backing significantly decreases tibial strains in a medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty model. J Arthroplast. 2011;26:777–82.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2010.07.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    O’Connor JJ, Goodfellow JW, Dodd CAF, Murray DW. Development and clinical application of meniscal unicompartmental arthroplasty. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2007;221:47–59.  https://doi.org/10.1243/09544119JEIM251.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hurst JM, Berend KR. Mobile-bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasty: the Oxford experience. Orthop Clin North Am. 2015;46:113–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocl.2014.09.007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pandit H, Liddle AD, Kendrick BJL, Jenkins C, Price AJ, Gill HS, et al. Improved fixation in cementless unicompartmental knee replacement: five-year results of a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:1365–72.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.01005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stempin R, Kaczmarek W, Stempin K, Dutka J. Midterm results of cementless and cemented unicondylar knee arthroplasty with mobile meniscal bearing: a prospective cohort study. Open Orthop J. 2017;11:1173–8.  https://doi.org/10.2174/1874325001711011173.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    White SH, Roberts S, Jones PW. The twin peg Oxford partial knee replacement: the first 100 cases. Knee. 2012;19:36–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2010.12.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hurst JM, Berend KR, Adams JB, Lombardi AV. Radiographic comparison of mobile-bearing partial knee single-peg versus twin-peg design. J Arthroplast. 2015;30:475–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.10.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stancil R, Summers N, Van Citters D, Sassoon A. Two pegs are better than one: rare mode of femoral component failure in unicompartmental arthroplasty requiring revision to total knee arthroplasty. Arthroplast Today. 2018;4:153–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2017.10.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Reiner T, Schwarze M, Panzram B, Klotz MC, Bitsch RG, Jaeger S. The influence of the twin peg design on femoral Interface temperature and maximum load to failure in cemented Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2018;55:23–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2018.04.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lombardi AV, Berend KR, Berend ME, Della Valle CJ, Engh GA, Fitz W, et al. Current controversies in partial knee arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect. 2012;61:347–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ansari S, Newman JH, Ackroyd CE. St. Georg sledge for medial compartment knee replacement. 461 arthroplasties followed for 4 (1-17) years. Acta Orthop Scand. 1997;68:430–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    DeHaven KE. Repicci II unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Arthroscopy. 2003;19(Suppl 1):117–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2003.09.049.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Riebel GD, Werner FW, Ayers DC, Bromka J, Murray DG. Early failure of the femoral component in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 1995;10:615–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Blunn GW, Joshi AB, Lilley PA, Engelbrecht E, Ryd L, Lidgren L, et al. Polyethylene wear in unicondylar knee prostheses. 106 retrieved Marmor, PCA, and St Georg tibial components compared. Acta Orthop Scand. 1992;63:247–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Argenson J-NA, Chevrol-Benkeddache Y, Aubaniac J-M. Modern unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cement: a three to ten-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84–A:2235–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Berger RA, Meneghini RM, Jacobs JJ, Sheinkop MB, Della Valle CJ, Rosenberg AG, et al. Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum of ten years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:999–1006.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.C.00568.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    van der List JP, Sheng DL, Kleeblad LJ, Chawla H, Pearle AD. Outcomes of cementless unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Knee. 2017;24:497–507.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2016.10.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    van der List JP, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD. Why do medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties fail today? J Arthroplast. 2016;31:1016–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.11.030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Annual Report. Adelaide, AOA 2011. Available at: https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/annual-reports-2011.
  31. 31.
    The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register (SKAR). Annual Report 2012. Available at: http://www.myknee.se/pdf/117_SKAR_2012_Engl_1.0.pdf.
  32. 32.
    Curtin B, Malkani A, Lau E, Kurtz S, Ong K. Revision after total knee arthroplasty and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the Medicare population. J Arthroplast. 2012;27:1480–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2012.02.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Murray DW, Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ. The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a ten-year survival study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80:983–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Campi S, Pandit HG, Dodd CAF, Murray DW. Cementless fixation in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25:736–45.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4244-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Akan B, Karaguven D, Guclu B, Yildirim T, Kaya A, Armangil M, et al. Cemented versus uncemented Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is there a difference? Adv Orthop. 2013;2013:245915.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/245915.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bert JM. 10-year survivorship of metal-backed, unicompartmental arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 1998;13:901–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Swank M, Stulberg SD, Jiganti J, Machairas S. The natural history of unicompartmental arthroplasty. An eight-year follow-up study with survivorship analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;286:130–42.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pandit H, Hamilton TW, Jenkins C, Mellon SJ, Dodd CAF, Murray DW. The clinical outcome of minimally invasive Phase 3 Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a 15-year follow-up of 1000 UKAs. Bone Joint J. 2015;97–B:1493–500.  https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B11.35634.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schlueter-Brust K, Kugland K, Stein G, Henckel J, Christ H, Eysel P, et al. Ten year survivorship after cemented and uncemented medial Uniglide® unicompartmental knee arthroplasties. Knee. 2014;21:964–70.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2014.03.009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bonutti PM, Dethmers DA. Contemporary unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: fixed vs mobile bearing. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:24–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2008.06.025.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Morra EA, Greenwald AS. Effects of walking gait on ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene damage in unicompartmental knee systems. A finite element study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85–A Suppl:111–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Morra EA, Heim CS, Greenwald AS. Surface stress: a factor influencing ultra high molecular weight polyethylene durability in mobile-bearing knee design. Orthopedics. 2007;30:35–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Argenson J-NA, Parratte S. The unicompartmental knee: design and technical considerations in minimizing wear. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;452:137–42.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000229358.19867.60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bruni D, Gagliardi M, Akkawi I, Raspugli GF, Bignozzi S, Marko T, et al. Good survivorship of all-polyethylene tibial component UKA at long-term follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24:182–7.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3361-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Manzotti A, Cerveri P, Pullen C, Confalonieri N. A flat all-polyethylene tibial component in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a long-term study. Knee. 2014;21(Suppl 1):S20–5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0968-0160(14)50005-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Aleto TJ, Berend ME, Ritter MA, Faris PM, Meneghini RM. Early failure of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty leading to revision. J Arthroplast. 2008;23:159–63.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2007.03.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mariani EM, Bourne MH, Jackson RT, Jackson ST, Jones P. Early failure of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2007;22:81–4.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2007.04.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Marmor L. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Ten- to 13-year follow-up study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988:14–20.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Squire MW, Callaghan JJ, Goetz DD, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC. Unicompartmental knee replacement. A minimum 15 year followup study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999:61–72.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Saenz CL, McGrath MS, Marker DR, Seyler TM, Mont MA, Bonutti PM. Early failure of a unicompartmental knee arthroplasty design with an all-polyethylene tibial component. Knee. 2010;17:53–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2009.05.007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Whittaker J-P, Naudie DDR, McAuley JP, McCalden RW, MacDonald SJ, Bourne RB. Does bearing design influence midterm survivorship of unicompartmental arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:73–81.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-0975-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Naudie D, Guerin J, Parker DA, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH. Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with the Miller-Galante prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86–A:1931–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Venkatesh HK, Maheswaran SS. Mid-term results of Miller-Galante unicompartmental knee replacement for medial compartment knee osteoarthritis. J Orthop Traumatol. 2016;17:199–206.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10195-015-0385-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Argenson J-NA, Blanc G, Aubaniac J-M, Parratte S. Modern unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cement: a concise follow-up, at a mean of twenty years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:905–9.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.00963.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Berger RA, Meneghini RM, Sheinkop MB, Della Valle CJ, Jacobs JJ, Rosenberg AG, et al. The progression of patellofemoral arthrosis after medial unicompartmental replacement: results at 11 to 15 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004:92–9.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Scott CEH, Powell-Bowns MFR, MacDonald DJ, Simpson PM, Wade FA. Revision of unicompartmental to total knee arthroplasty: does the unicompartmental implant (metal-backed vs all-polyethylene) impact the total knee arthroplasty? J Arthroplast. 2018;33:2203–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Schai PA, Suh JT, Thornhill TS, Scott RD. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in middle-aged patients: a 2- to 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplast. 1998;13:365–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Hyldahl HC, Regnér L, Carlsson L, Kärrholm J, Weidenhielm L. Does metal backing improve fixation of tibial component in unicondylar knee arthroplasty? A randomized radiostereometric analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:174–9.  https://doi.org/10.1054/arth.2001.20257.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Hamilton WG, Collier MB, Tarabee E, McAuley JP, Engh CA, Engh GA. Incidence and reasons for reoperation after minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2006;21:98–107.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2006.05.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Hutt JRB, Farhadnia P, Massé V, LaVigne M, Vendittoli P-A. A randomised trial of all-polyethylene and metal-backed tibial components in unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee. Bone Joint J. 2015;97–B:786–92.  https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B6.35433.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Koh IJ, Suhl KH, Kim MW, Kim MS, Choi KY, In Y. Use of all-polyethylene tibial components in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty increases the risk of early failure. J Knee Surg. 2017;30:807–15.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1597979.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Li S, Scuderi G, Furman BD, Bhattacharyya S, Schmieg JJ, Insall JN. Assessment of backside wear from the analysis of 55 retrieved tibial inserts. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002:75–82.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Rouanet T, Combes A, Migaud H, Pasquier G. Do bone loss and reconstruction procedures differ at revision of cemented unicompartmental knee prostheses according to the use of metal-back or all-polyethylene tibial component? Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2013;99:687–92.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2013.03.018.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Newman J, Pydisetty RV, Ackroyd C. Unicompartmental or total knee replacement: the 15-year results of a prospective randomised controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91:52–7.  https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.91B1.20899.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Lombardi AV, Berend KR, Walter CA, Aziz-Jacobo J, Cheney NA. Is recovery faster for mobile-bearing unicompartmental than total knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:1450–7.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-0731-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Smith TO, Hing CB, Davies L, Donell ST. Fixed versus mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement: a meta-analysis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2009;95:599–605.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2009.10.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Parratte S, Pauly V, Aubaniac J-M, Argenson J-NA. No long-term difference between fixed and mobile medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:61–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-1961-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Li MG, Yao F, Joss B, Ioppolo J, Nivbrant B, Wood D. Mobile vs. fixed bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a randomized study on short term clinical outcomes and knee kinematics. Knee. 2006;13:365–70.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2006.05.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Confalonieri N, Manzotti A, Pullen C. Comparison of a mobile with a fixed tibial bearing unicompartimental knee prosthesis: a prospective randomized trial using a dedicated outcome score. Knee. 2004;11:357–62.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2004.01.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Winnock de Grave P, Barbier J, Luyckx T, Ryckaert A, Gunst P, Van den Daelen L. Outcomes of a fixed-bearing, medial, cemented unicondylar knee arthroplasty design: survival analysis and functional score of 460 cases. J Arthroplast. 2018;33:2792–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.04.031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Neufeld ME, Albers A, Greidanus NV, Garbuz DS, Masri BA. A comparison of mobile and fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum 10-year follow-up. J Arthroplast. 2018;33:1713–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Walker T, Hetto P, Bruckner T, Gotterbarm T, Merle C, Panzram B, et al. Minimally invasive Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty ensures excellent functional outcome and high survivorship in the long term. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-5299-2.
  73. 73.
    Emerson RH, Higgins LL. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with the oxford prosthesis in patients with medial compartment arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:118–22.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00739.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Svärd UC, Price AJ. Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. A survival analysis of an independent series. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83:191–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Mercier N, Wimsey S, Saragaglia D. Long-term clinical results of the Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2010;34:1137–43.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-009-0869-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Price AJ, Waite JC, Svard U. Long-term clinical results of the medial Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005:171–80.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Bloom KJ, Gupta RR, Caravella JW, Shishani YF, Klika AK, Barsoum WK. The effects of primary implant bearing design on the complexity of revision unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2014;29:106–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Peersman G, Stuyts B, Vandenlangenbergh T, Cartier P, Fennema P. Fixed- versus mobile-bearing UKA: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23:3296–305.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3131-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Emerson RH, Hansborough T, Reitman RD, Rosenfeldt W, Higgins LL. Comparison of a mobile with a fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee implant. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002:62–70.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Gleeson RE, Evans R, Ackroyd CE, Webb J, Newman JH. Fixed or mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement? A comparative cohort study. Knee. 2004;11:379–84.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2004.06.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Burton A, Williams S, Brockett CL, Fisher J. In vitro comparison of fixed- and mobile meniscal-bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasties: effect of design, kinematics, and condylar liftoff. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27:1452–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2012.02.011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Kwon O-R, Kang K-T, Son J, Kwon S-K, Jo S-B, Suh D-S, et al. Biomechanical comparison of fixed- and mobile-bearing for unicomparmental knee arthroplasty using finite element analysis. J Orthop Res. 2014;32:338–45.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.22499.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew P. Siljander
    • 1
  • Jay S. Croley
    • 1
  • Donald M. Knapke
    • 2
  1. 1.Beaumont HealthRoyal OakUSA
  2. 2.Beaumont HealthTroyUSA

Personalised recommendations