Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Statements

  • Chapter
Die unikondyläre Schlittenprothese Pro & Contra

  • 38 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Hochtibiale Osteotomie (HTO) vs. unikondyläre Schlittenprothese Bei der hohen tibialen Osteotomie handelt es sich um eine ein- bzw. zweidimensionale und extrakapsuläre Korrektur einer Kniedeformität. Die HTO beeinflusst die Statik des Kniegelenkes in Extension, jedoch nur marginal die Dynamik des Kniegelenkes in Flexion. Der unikompartimentale Gelenkersatz erlaubt eine Korrektur in allen 3 Ebenen des Raums.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  • Bergmann E-G, Süssenbach F (1997) The unicondylar knee replacement as a treatment of varus/valgus osteoarthritis of the knee. Middle and long term results in Ph. Cartier: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, pp 181–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourne RB (2001) Reevaluating the unicondylar knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 24(9):885–886

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Breyer P, Süssenbach F (1992) Der unikondyläre Gelenkflächenersatz zur Behandlung der Varus-AVal-gusgonarthrose (2-15 Jahres-Ergebnisse). Orthop Praxis 28(5):365–368

    Google Scholar 

  • Breyer P, Süssenbach F, Oest O (1996) Der unikondyläre Gelenkflächenersatz. In: Stuhler T (Hrsg) Gonarthrosen. Thieme, 165 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Broughton NS, Newman JH, Baily RA (1986) Unicompartmental replacement and high tibial osteotomy for osteoarthritis of the knee. A comparative study after 5-10 years’ follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 68(3):447–452

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cartier P, Cheaib S (1987) Unicondylar knee arthroplasty. 2-10 years of follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty 2(2):157–162

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Coventry MB (1979) Upper tibial osteotomy for gonarthrosis. Orthop Clin N Am 10:191–210

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Coventry MB, Ilstrup DM, Wallrichs SL (1993) Proximal tibial osteotomy. A critical long-term study of eighty-seven cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am 75(2): 196–201

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Edgerton BC, Mariani EM, Morrey BF (1993) Distal femoral varus osteotomy for painful genu valgum. A five-to-11-year follow-up study. Clin Orthop 288:263–269

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ (1978) The Mechanics of the Knee and Prothesis. Design JBJS Vol 60-B, No 3, pp 358–369

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ, Murray DW (2002) The Oxford meniscal unicompartmental knee. J Knee Surg Fall 15(4):240–246

    Google Scholar 

  • Goutallier D, Hernigou P, Medevielle D, Debeyre J (1986) Outcome at more than 10 years of 93 tibial osteotomies for internal arthritis in genu varum (or the predominant influence of the frontal angular correction). Rev Chir Orthop Réparatrice Appar Mot 72(2):101–113

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Heck DA, Marmor L, Gibson A, Rougraff BT (1993) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. A multicenter investigation with long-term follow-up evaluation. Clin Orthop 286:154–159

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Insall JN, Joseph DM, Msika C (1984) High tibial osteotomy for varus gonarthrosis. A long-term follow-up study. J Vone Joint Surg Am 66(7):1040–1048

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Insall JN (1975) High tibial osteotomy in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee. Surg Annu 7:347–359

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson RJ, Whittle MW (1990) Functional biomechanical results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 72B:161ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenny JY, Tavan A, Jenny G (1998) Unicondylar knee prosthesis. In: Rabenseifner L (Hrsg) Knieendoprothetik. Steinkopff, S 56 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Kisslinger E, Justen HP, Wessinghage D (2001) Better than their reputation?—5 to 20 years outcome with single compartment knee joint endoprostheses in medial osteoarthritis of the knee. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 139(2):97–101

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kozinn SC, Scott RD (1988) Surgical treatment of unicompartmental degenerative arthritis of the knee. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 14(3):545–564

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Laskin RS (1978) Unicompartmental tibiofemoral resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 60(2): 182–185

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Laskin RS (2001) Controversies in total knee replacement. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurencin CT, Zelicof SB, Scott RD, Ewald FC (1991) Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in the same patient. A comparative study. Clin Orthop 273:151–156

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liebau C, Friedrich F et al (1998) 1st die Implantation einer unikondylären Schlittenprothese noch zeitgemäß. In: Rabenseifner L (Hrsg) Uniendoprothetik. Steinkopff, S 47 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray DW, Goodfellow JW (2003) Medial uniconpartmental knee replacement. In: Fuchs S, Tibesku CO (Hrsg) Neues in der Knieendoprothetik. Steinkopff

    Google Scholar 

  • Neyret P, Déroche P, Deschamps G, Dejour H (1992) Total knee replacement after valgus tibial osteotomy. Technical problems. Rev Chir Orthop Réparatrice Appar Mot 78(7):438–448

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Odenbring S, Egund N, Lindstrand A, Lohmander LS, Willen H (1992) Cartilage regeneration after proximal tibial osteotomy for medial gonarthrosis. An arthroscopic, roentgenographic, and histologic study. Clin Orthop 277:210–216

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oest O, Süssenbach F (1987) Die praeoperative Planung kniegelenknaher Korrektur-und Umstellungs-Osteotomien. Orthop Praxis 23(1):48–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson O, Borquist L, Lewold S, Lidgren L (1999) Use of unicompartmental unilead of tricompartmental prosthesis. Acta Orthop Scand 70(2), p 170 ff

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rougraff BT, Heck DA, Gibson AE (1991) A comparison of tricompartmental and unicompartmental arthroplasty for the treatment of gonarthrosis. Clin Orthop 273:157–164

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ryd L, Lindstrand A, Strenstrom A, Selvik G (1992) The influence of metal backing in unicompartmental tibial component fixation. An in vivo roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis of micromotion. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 111(3):148–154

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Scott RD, Cobb AG, McQueary FG, Thornhill TS (1991) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Eight-to 12-year follow-up evaluation with survivorship analysis. Clin Orthop 271:96–100

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Süssenbach F (2003) Unikondyläre Prothesen. In: Fuchs S, Tibesku CO (Hrsg) Neues in der Endoprothetik. Steinkopff, Darmstadt, S 4–9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Süssenbach F, Hau G, Oest O (1987) Der unikondyläre Gelenkflächenersatz zur Behandlung der Varusgonarthrose (5-10 Jahres-Ergebnisse). Orthop Praxis 23(2):100–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Thermann H, Kilger R, Diessen A, Müller S (2003) Minimalinvasive Technik der unicodylären Kniearthroplastik und kombinierte stabilisierende Eingriffe. In: Fuchs S, Tibesku CO (Hrsg) Neues in der Knieendoprothetik. Steinkopff, Darmstadt, S 25–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Weale AE, Newman JH (1994) Unicompartmental arthroplasty and high tibial osteotomy for osteoarthrosis of the knee. A comparative study with a 12-to 17-year follow-up period. Clin Orthop 302: 134–137

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weale AE, Murray DW, Crawford R, Psychoyios V, Bonomo A, Howell G, O’Connor J, Goodfellow JW (1999) Does arthritis progress in the retained compartments after’ Oxford* medial unicompartmental arthroplasty? A clinical and radiological study with a minimum ten-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 81(5):783–789

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Weale AE, Murray DW, Baines J, Newman JH (2000) Radiological changes five years after unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 82(7):996–1000

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yasuda K, Majima T, Tsuchida T, Kaneda K (1992) A ten-to 15-year follow-up observation of high tibial osteotomy in medial compartment osteoarthrosis. Clin Orthop 282:186–195

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Literatur

  1. Jäger M, Wirth CJ (1986) Praxis der Orthopädie. In: Anonymous. Thieme, Stuttgart New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. Meyer M, Machner A, Pap G, Neumann HW (2000) Ist die unikondyläre Knieprothese eine zeitgemäße Möglichkeit der Primärversorgung bei Varusgonarthrose? — Eine prospektive matched-pair-Studie. Z Orthop 138:204–208

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Literatur

  1. Muliaji AB, Heywood-Waddington MB, Adhikari A (1994) The unreplaced compartments after unicondylar knee replacement: a 5-year mean follow up of 33 knees. J Orthop Rheumatol 7:93–98

    Google Scholar 

Literatur

  1. Meyer M, Machner A, Pap G, Neumann HW (2000) Ist die unikondyläre Knieprothese eine zeitgemäße Möglichkeit der Primärversorgung bei Varusgonarthrose? — Eine prospektive matched-pair-Studie. Z Orthop 138:204–208

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Newman JH, Ackroyd CE, Shah NA (1998) Unicompartmental or total knee replacement? Five-year results of a prospective, randomised trial of 102 osteoarthritic knees with unicompartmental arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:862–865

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Literatur

  1. Muliaji AB, Heywood-Waddington MB, Adhikari A (1994) The unreplaced compartments after unicondylar knee replacement: a 5-year mean follow up of 33 knees. J Orthop Rheumatol 7:93–98

    Google Scholar 

Literatur

  1. Kißliger E, Justen HP, Wessinghage D (2001) Besser als ihr Ruf? 5-bis 20-Jahres-Ergebnisse mit Unicompartment-Kniegelenksendoprothesen bei medialer Gonarthrose. Z Orthop 139:97–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Palmer SH, Morrison PJ, Ross AC (1998) Early catastrophic tibial component wear after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 284:143–148

    Google Scholar 

Literatur

  1. Meyer M, Machner A, Pap G, Neumann HW (2000) Ist die unikondyläre Knieprothese eine zeitgemäße Möglichkeit der Primärversorgung bei Varusgonar-throse?—Eine prospektive matched-pair-Studie. Z Orthop 138:204–208

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 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 

Literatur

  1. Jenny JY, Rapp E, Kehr P (1997) Proximal tibial meniscal slope: a comparison with the bone slope. Rev Chir Orthop Réparatrice Appar Mot 84(5):435–438

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Kanamiya T et al (2002) The influences of biomechanical factors on cartilage regeneration after high tibial osteotomy for knees with medial compartment osteoarthritis: clinical and arthroscopic observations. Arthroscopy 18(7):725–729

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Odenbring S et al (1992) Cartilage regeneration after proximal tibial osteotomy for medial gonar-throsis. An arthroscopic, roentgenographic, and histologic study. Clin Orthop 277:210–216

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Outerbridge RE (1961) The etiology of chondromalacia patellae. J Bone Joint Surg 43B:752–757

    Google Scholar 

  5. Outerbridge RE, Dunlop JA (1975) The problem of chondromalacia patellae. Clin Orthop 110:177–196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bensadoun J (1997) Biomechanical aspects of unicompartmental arthroplasty. In: Cartier P et al (eds) Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. Expansion Scientifique Francaise, Paris, pp 3–12

    Google Scholar 

  7. Maquet P (1976) Biomechanics of the knee. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 148–154

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Robertsson O (2000) Unicompartmental arthroplasty. Results in Sweden 1986-1995. Orthopäde 29(Suppl 1):6–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lewold S et al (1998) Revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: outcome in 1,135 cases from the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty study. Acta Orthop Scand 69(5):469–474

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Blankevoort L, Van As R, Huiskes R (1997) Finite element analysis of the Guépar Lotur I and II unicompartmental knee prostheses. In: Cartier P et al (eds) Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. Expansion Scientifique Francaise, Paris, pp 68–73

    Google Scholar 

  11. Thermann H (2002) Unikondyläre Schlittenprothese mit Minizugang (nach Repicci). In: Paessler H (Hrsg) Neue Techniken. Kniechirurgie. Steinkopff Darmstadt, S 115–129

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Robertsson O et al (2001) The routine of surgical management reduces failure after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83(1):45–49

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Literatur

  1. Lootvoet L, Massinon A, Rossillon R, Himer O, Lambert K, Ghosez J-P (1993) Ostéotomie tibiale haute de valgisation pour gonarthrose sur genu varum. A propos d’une série de cent quatre-vingt treize cas revus après 6 à 10 ans de recul. Rev Chir Orthop 79:375–384

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Cartier P, Sanouiller JL (1992) La prothèse unicompartimentale du genou dans les échecs d’ostéotomie tibíale de valgisation pour gonarthrose. A propos de 25 cas. Rev Chir Orthop 78:112–114

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cartier P, Epinette JA, Deschamps G, Hernigou P (1997) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Expansion Scientifique Française, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cartier P, Cheaib S (1987) Unicondylar knee arthroplasty 2-10 years follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty 2, 2:157–162

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Corpe RS, Engh GA (1990) A quantitative assessment of degenerative changes acceptable in the unoperated compartment of knees undergoing unicompartmental replacement. Orthop 113:319

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chassin EP, Mikosz RP, Andriacchi TP, Rosenberg AG (1996) Functional analysis of cemented medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 5:553–559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bonutti PM, Kester MA (1997) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a US experience. In: Cartier P, Epinette JA, Deschamps G, Hernigou P (eds) Uni compartmental knee arthroplasty. Expansion Scientifique Française, Paris 61, pp 261–266

    Google Scholar 

  8. Padgett D, Stern S, Insall J (1991) Revision total knee arthroplasty for failed unicompartmental replacement. J Bone Joint Surg 73 A: 186–190

    Google Scholar 

  9. Grelsamer RP, Cartier P (1992) A unicompartmental knee replacement is not ”half a total knee”: five major differences. Orthop Rev 21: 1952–1956

    Google Scholar 

  10. Günther TV, Murray DW, Miller R, Wallace DA, O’Connor JJ, McLardy-Smith P, Goodfellow JW (1996) Lateral unicompartmental arthroplasty with the Oxford meniscal knee. The Knee 3:33–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cartier P, Landreau P (1996) Technique de la prothèse unicompartimentale externe. Rev Chir Orthop 82(Suppl 1):25–60

    Google Scholar 

  12. Scott RD, Cobb AG, McQueary FG, Thornhill TS (1991) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. 8 to 12 year follow-up evaluation with survivorship analysis. Clin Orthop 271:96–100

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bergmann EG, Süssenbach F (1997) The unicondylar knee replacement as a treatment of varus/ valgus osteoarthritis of the knee. Middle and long term results. In: Cartier P, Epinette JA, Deschamps G, Hernigou P (eds) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Expansion Scientifique Française, Paris 61, pp 180–191

    Google Scholar 

  14. Capra S, Fehring TK (1992) Unicondylar arthroplasty—a survivorship analysis. J Arthroplasty 7, 3:247–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Epinette JA, Edidin AA (1996) Hydroxyapatite coated unicompartmental knee replacement. A report of five to six years follow-up of the H.A. Unix tibial component. In: Cartier P, Epinette JA, Deschamps G, Hernigou P (eds) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Expansion Scientifique Française, Paris 61, pp 243–260

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bauer TW, Taylor SK, Jiang M, Medendorp SV (1994) An indirect comparison of third body wear in retrieved hydroxyapathite-coated porous and cemented femoral components. Clin Orthop 298:11

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cartier P (2002) U.K.A. benefits and pitfalls. AAOS Dallas Symposium

    Google Scholar 

  18. Marmor L (1976) The modular (Marmor) knee. Clin Orthop 120:86–94

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Repicci II™ Unicondylar Program

    Google Scholar 

  20. Neumann HW (2002) Revisionsmöglichkeiten nach unikondylärer Knieprothese. Münsteraner Streitgespräche. Universitätsklinikum Münster

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cartier P (2000) Unicompartmental prosthetic replacement. In: Surgical techniques in orthopaedics and traumatology. Editions Scientifiques et Médicales Elsevier SAS (Paris) 55-570-A-10

    Google Scholar 

  22. Cartier P, Sanouiller JL, Grelsamer RP (1996) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty surgery. 10 years minimum follow-up period. J Arthroplasty 11(7):782–788

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Marmor L (1985) Unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 192:75

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Engh GA, Dwyer KA, Hanes CK (1992) Polyethylene wear of metal backed tibial components in total and unicompartmental knee prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg 74B:9–17

    Google Scholar 

  25. Deschamps G, Lapeyre B (1987) La rupture du ligament croisé antérieur: une cause d’échec souvent méconnue des prothèses unicomparti-mentales du genou. A propos d’une série de 79 prothèses Lotus revues au-delà de 5 ans. Rev Chir Orthop 73:544–551

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Goodfellow J, O’Connor JJ (1990) The anterior cruciate ligament in knee arthroplasty: a risk-factor with unconstrained meniscal prostheses. Clin Orthop 276:245–252

    Google Scholar 

Literatur

  • Argenson JN, Komistek RD, Aubaniac JM, Dennis DA, Northcut EJ, Anderson DT, Agostini S (2002) In vivo determination of knee kinematics for subjects implanted with a unicompartimental arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 17:1049–1054

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bert JM (1998) Ten-year survivorship of metal-backed unicompartimental arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 13:901–905

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Boehler N (2001) Unicompartimental knee arthroplasty. In: Sculco TP, Martucci EA (eds) Knee Arthroplasty. Springer, Wien New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Boenisch U, de Boer P (1995) Die proximale Tibiaosteotomie bei Varusgonarthrose. Operat Orthop Traumatol 7:98–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bochner R (1991) Indications and alternatives to total knee replacement. In: Laskin RS (ed) Total knee replacement. Springer, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Broughton N, Newan JH, Baily J (1986) Unicompartimental replacement and high tibial osteotomy for osteoarthritis of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 68:447–452

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brown A (2001) The Oxford unicompartimental knee replacement for osteoarthritis. Issues Emerg Health Technol 23:1–4

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burstein AH, Wright TM (1994) Fundamentals of Orthopaedic Biomechanics. Williams&Williams, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Callaghan JJ (2001) Reduction of polyethylene wear in mobile-bearing knees. Orthopaedics Today Jan/ Feb:8-9

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesnut WJ (1991) Preoperative diagnostic protocol to predict candidate for unicompartimental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 273:146–150

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fujisawa Y, Masuhara K, Shiomi S (1979) The effect of high tibial osteotomy on osteoarthritis of the knee. Orthop Clin North Am 10:585–608

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gautier E, Jakob RP (1996) Stellenwert von Umstellungsosteotomien—Indikation, Technik, Ergebnisse. Therapeut Umschau 53:790–796

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Goodfellow JW, Kershaw CJ, O’Connor JJ (1988) The Oxford knee for unicompartimental osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 70:692–701

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Haas BD, Komistek RD, Dennis D (2002) In vivo kinematics of the low contact stress rotating platform total knee. Orthopedics 25:219–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodge WA, Chandler HP (1992) Unicompartimental knee replacement: comparison of constrained and unconstrained designs. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 74:877–883

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jenny JY, Tavan A, Jenny G (1998) Unicondylar Knee Prosthesis: Should instrumentation be more precise? In: Rabenseifer L (Hrsg) Knieendoprothetik. Steinkopff, Darmstadt

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenny JY (2002) Minimal-invasive Implantation mit einem CT-freien Navigationssystem. Implant 2:5–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones RD (2001) Historical perspective of mobilebearing knee implants. Orthopaedics Today, pp 12–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Kißlinger E, Wessinghage D (1998) Infektionsraten bei Knie-Endoprothesen unterschiedlicher Größe—Vorteile der Unicompartiment-Schlittenprothese. In: Rabenseifer L (Hrsg) Knieendoprothetik. Steinkopff, Darmstadt

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight JL, Atwater RD, Guo JIE (1997) Early failure of the porous coated anatomic cemented unicompartimental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 12: 11–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lewold S, Goodman S, Knutson K, Robertsson O, Lidgren L (1995) Oxford meniscal bearing versus the Marmor knee in unicompartimental arthroplasty for arthrosis. A Swedish multicenter survival study. J Arthroplasty 10:722–731

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lima D (2002) Oral Presentation, 22th SICOT World Congress, San Diego/USA, 23.-30. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAuley JP, Engh G A, Ammeen DJ (2001) Revision of failed unicompartimental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 392:279–282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meneghani R (2002) Oral Presentation, 22th SICOT World Congress, San Diego/USA, 23.-30. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller PE, Pellengahr C, Kircher J, Refior HJ, Jansson V (2002) Klinische Erfahrungen mit minimal-inva-siver Kniegelenksendoprothetik. Implant 2:3–4

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Price AJ, Webb J, Topf H, Dodd CA, Goodfellow JW, Murray DW (2001) Rapid recovery after oxford unicompartimental arthroplasty through a short incision. J Arthroplasty 16:970–976

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Reilly D, Walker PS, ben.Dov M, Ewald FC (1982) Effects of tibial components on load transfer in the upper tibia. Clin orthop 165:273–282

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ritter MA (1994) The cemented all-poly tibia. Orthopedics 7:841

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott RD, Cobb AG, McQuerary FG, Thornhill TS (1991) Unicompartimental knee arthroplasty. 8 to 12 year follow-up evaluation with survivorship arthroplasty analysis. Clin Orthop 271:96–100

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Scott RD, Chmell MJ (1995) Unicompartimental total knee arthroplasty. In: Callaghan JJ, Dennis DA, Pa prosky WG, Rosenberg AG (eds) Hip and Knee Reconstruction. AAOS, Rosemont

    Google Scholar 

  • Svärd UCG, Price AJ (2001) Oxford medial unicompartimental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 83:191–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tew M, Waugh W (1985) Tibiofemoral alignment and the results of knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 67:551–556

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein JN, Andriacchi TP, Galante J (1986) Factors influencing walking and stairclimbing following unicompartimental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1:109–115

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Whiteside L (2000) Cementless tibia fixation—Going, going, gone! Oral Presentation on the 17pth Current Concepts in joint Replacement, Winter 2000, Orlando/USA, 13.-16. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright TM (2001) Knee biomechanics and prosthetic design. In: Sculco TP, Martucci EA (eds) Knee Arthroplasty. Springer, Wien New York

    Google Scholar 

Literatur

  1. Laurencin CT, Zelicof SB, Scott RD, Ewald FC (1991) Unicompartmental versus total knee replacement in the same patient: a comparative study. Clin Orthop 273:151–156

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rougraff BT, Heck DA, Gibson AE (1991) A comparison of tricompartmental and unicompartmental arthroplasty for the treatment of gonarthrosis. Clin Orthop 273:157–164

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Newman JH, Ackroyd CE, Shah NA (1998) Unicompartmental or total knee replacement? Five-year results of a prospective randomised trial of 102 osteoarthritic knees with unicompartmental arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 80B:862–865

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Argenson JN, O’Connor JJ (1992) Polyethylene wear in meniscal knee replacement: a one to nine year retrieval analysis of the Oxford knee. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 74B:228–232

    Google Scholar 

  5. Psychoyios V, Crawford RW, Murray DW, O’Connor J.J (1998) Wear of congruent mensal bearings in unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 80B:976–982

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ (1992) The Anterior Cruciate ligament in knee arthroplasty. A risk factor with unconstrained meniscal prostheses. Clin Orthop 276:245–252

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. White S, Ludkowski PF, Goodfellow JW (1991) Antero medial osteoarthritis of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 73B.582–586

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gibson P, Goodfellow JW (1986) Stress radiography in degenerative arthritis of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 68B:608–609

    Google Scholar 

  10. Goodfellow JW, Kershaw CJ, Benson MKD, O’Connor J J (1988) The Oxford knee for unicompartmental osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 70B:692–701

    Google Scholar 

  11. Weale A, Murray DW, Crawford R, Psychoyios V, Bonomo A, Howell G, O’Connor J, Goodfellow JW (1999) Does arthritis progress in the retained compartments after ”Oxford” medial unicompartmental arthroplasty? J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 8IB: 783–789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Price AJ, Svard U, Dodd C, Goodfellow JW, O’Connor J, Murray DW (2000) The Oxford Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty in patients under 60. ESSKA, London

    Google Scholar 

  13. Martin J, Wallace D, Woods D, Carr A, Murray DW (1995) Revision of unicompartmental knee replacement to total knee replacement. The Knee 2:121–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Woods D, Wallace D, Woods C, McLardy-Smith P, Carr A, Murray D, Martin J, Günther T (1995) Chondrocalcinosis and medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. The Knee 2:117–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Price AJ, Svard U, Murray D (2000) Bearing dislocation in the Oxford Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. ESSKA, London, September

    Google Scholar 

  16. Svard U, Price AJ (2001) Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 83B: 191–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Svard U, Price AJ (2001) The fifteen-year survival of the Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement. EFFORT, Rhodes

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lewold S, Goodman S, Knutson K, Robertsson O, Lidgren L (1995) Oxford meniscal bearing knee versus the Marmor knee in unicompartmental arthroplasty for arthrosis: a Swedish multi-centre survival study. J Arthroplasty 10:722–731

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Robertsson O, Knutson K, Lewold S, Lidgren L (2001) The routine of surgical management reduces failure after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 83B:45–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Price AJ, Webb J, Topf H, Dodd C, Goodfellow JW, Murray DW (2004) Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement with a minimally invasive technique. J Arthroplasty (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Beard DJ, Rees JL, Price AJ, Hambly PR, Dodd CAF, Murray DW (2001) Feasibility of day surgery for knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] Suppl (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Price AJ, Short A, Kellett C et al (2004) Sagittal plane kinematics of the Oxford Medial Unicompartmental Arthroplasty—an in-vivo study. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] Abstract (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Aldinger PR, Gill HS, Rumolo C, Schneider M, Breusch SJ, Murray DW (2003) Minimally Invasive Approach for Image Guided Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Cadaver Study. 3prd CAOS International Meeting, Marbella, Spain

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Centro di Chirurgia Protesica, Via Riccardo Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milano, Italy

    S. Romagnoli, G. von Foerster, F. Süssenbach, O. Vollmert, K. Mahlfeld, H. W. Neumann, H. Thermann, P. Cartier, D. C. Wirtz, P. R. Aldinger, D. W. Murray & J. W. Goodfellow

Authors
  1. S. Romagnoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. von Foerster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. F. Süssenbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. O. Vollmert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. K. Mahlfeld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. H. W. Neumann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. H. Thermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. P. Cartier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. D. C. Wirtz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. P. R. Aldinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. D. W. Murray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. J. W. Goodfellow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Klinikum Dortmund gGmbH Orthopädische Klinik, Beurhausstraße 40, 44137, Dortmund, Germany

    Klaus Buckup

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Romagnoli, S. et al. (2005). Statements. In: Buckup, K. (eds) Die unikondyläre Schlittenprothese Pro & Contra. Steinkopff, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7985-1939-8_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7985-1939-8_11

  • Publisher Name: Steinkopff, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-62171-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-7985-1939-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation