Safa GÜRSOY, Mesut TAHTA, Çetin IŞIK, Murat BOZKURT, Ali ŞAHİN, Osman TECİMEL

DİZ EKLEMİNİN MEDİAL KOMPARTMAN ARTROZUNDA UNİKOMPARTMANTAL DİZ ARTROPLASTİSİNİN ETKİNLİĞİ

Amaç: Bu çalışmada unikompartmental diz artroplastisi uygulanan hastaların orta dö- nem klinik ve radyolojik sonuçları değerlendirildi. Hastalar ve Yöntem: Ankara Atatürk Eğitim Ve Araştırma Hastanesinde 2008 2011 yıl- ları arasında unikompartmantal diz artroplastisi uygulanan 48 hasta / diz (32 kadın, 16 erkek) değerlendirildi. Ortalama yaş 62.2 (53-86) idi. Ortalama takip süresi 43.4 (26-59) ay idi. Tüm hastalara Oxford Uni® (Biomet Ltd., Bridgend, UK) çimentolu ve hareketli insertli implant uygulandı. Sonuçlar HSS (Hospital for special surgery) skoru ve KSS (Knee society score) diz ve fonksiyon skoru ile değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Preoperatif ortalama HSS skoru 62 (55 75) iken, postoperatif son muayenede 91 e (85-100); ortalama KSS diz skoru 53 (45-60) iken postoperatif son muayenede 89 a (85 95) ve KSS fonksiyon skoru ise 58 (48-63) iken postoperatif son muayenede 91 e (87-96) yükseldi. Preoperatif ortalama 125 derece (119-135) olan aktif maksimum flek- siyon postoperatif son muayenede 140 derece (133-151) ye yükseldi. Preoperatif ortala- ma 1.50 lik(0.5-3,5) varus, postoperatif 4.3 derecelik (2.6 5.1) valgusa dönüştü. Sonuç: Unikompartmantal diz artroplastisi seçilmiş vakalarda oldukça başarılı sonuçlar vermektedir

Efficiency of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty in Medial Compartment Arthrosis of Knee

Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate clinical and radiological mid-term results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Methods: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasties in 48 patients (32 female, 16 male) which were performed between years 2008-2011 in Ankara Ataturk Education and Research Hospital were rewieved.Mean age was 62.2 (53-86) years. Mean follow up period was 43.4 (range: 26 - 59) moths. Oxford Uni® (Biomet Ltd., Bridgend, UK) cemented implant motion inserts was performed to all patients with standard surgery procedure. Functional outcome was assessed by Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) and Knee Society Score (KSS). Results: Mean preoperative HSS score was 62 (55-77) and 91 (85-100) at final follow up. Mean preoperative KSS was 53 (45-60) and 89 (85-95) at final follow up. Preoperative mean KSS functional score was 58 (48-63) and 91 (87-96) at final follow up. Preoperative mean flexion was 125 degrees (119-135) and postoperative 140 degrees (133-152) and postoperative was 140 derece (1330-1520). Active full flexion was gained in month 3 postoperatively. Tibiofemoral angle was 1.5 degrees (3.5-0.5) varus preoperatively and 4.3 degrees (2.6-5.1) valgus postoperatively. Conclusion: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty has quite good results in appropriate patients.

PDF

___

1. Hamilton WG, Ammeen D, Engh CA Jr, Engh GA. Learning curve with minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2010;25 (5):735-40.
2. Inglis GS. Unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee: a fol- low-up of 3 to 9 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1984;66(5):682-4.
3. Knutson K, Jonsson G, Langer Andersen J, Larusdottir H, Lidgren L. Deformation and loosening of the tibial com- ponent in knee arthroplasty with unicompartmental endo- prostheses. Acta Orthop Scand 1981;52(6):667-73.
4. Atik OŞ. Unikompartmantal diz artroplastisi mi, total diz artroplastisi mi?. Eklem Hastalık Cerrahisi 2011;22(2):118-9.
5. Kozinn SC, Scott R: Unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 1989;71(1):145-50.
6. Rougraff BT, Heck DA, Gibson AE: A comparison of tricom- partmental and unicompartmental arthroplasty for the treatment of gonarthrosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1991;(273):157-64. replacement using a minimally-invasive approach. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006; 88(1):54-60. 14. Rees JL, Price AJ, Beard DJ, Dodd CA, Murray DW. Mini- mally invasive Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: functional results at 1 year and the effect of surgical inexpe- rience. Knee 2004;11(5):363-7. 15. Choy WS, Kim KJ, Lee Sk, Yang DS, Lee NK. Mid- Term Results of Oxford Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. Clin Orth Surg 2011;3(3):178-83.
7. Thornhill RS, Scott R: Unicompartmental total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 1989;20(2):245- 56.
8. Laurencin CT, Zelicof SB, Scott RD, Ewald FC. Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in the same patient: a comparative study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1991;(273):151-6.
9. Newman JH, Ackroyd CE, Shah NA. Unicompartmental or total knee replacement? Five year results of a prospective, randomised trial of 102 osteoarthritic knees with unicompart- mental arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg 1998;80(5):862-5.
10. Laskin RS: Unicompartmental tibiofemoral resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 1978;60(2):182-5.
16. Berger RA, Meneghini RM, Jacobs JJ, Sheinkop MB, Della Valle CJ, Rosenberg AG, et al. Results of uni- compartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum of ten years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005;87(5):999-1006.
17. Goodfellow JW, Tibrewal SB, Sherman KP, OConnor JJ. Unicompartmental Oxford Meniscal knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1987;2(1):1-9.
18. Marmor L. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: ten- to 13- year follow-up study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988;(226):14-20.
19. Thornhill TS. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1986;(205):121-31.
11. MacKinnon J, Young S, Baily RA: The St. Georg sledge for unicompartmental replacement of the knee: a prospective study of 115 cases. J Bone Joint Surg 1988;70(2):217-23.
12. Tabor OB, Tabor OB: Unicompartmental arthroplasty: a long term follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 1998;13(4):373-9.
13. Pandit H, Jenkins C, Barker K, Dodd CA, Murray DW. The Oxford medial unicompartmental knee