This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jones, W. T.
Right arrow Articles by Ilstrup, D. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jones, W. T.
Right arrow Articles by Ilstrup, D. M.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Vol 63, Issue 6 946-954, Copyright © 1981 by Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc


JOURNAL CONTENTS

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using polycentric and geometric hemicomponents

WT Jones, RS Bryan, LF Peterson and DM Ilstrup

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty was performed in 207 knees of 179 patients using either a polycentric (188) or a geometric (nineteen) hemicomponent. After an average follow-up of 2.6 years, the results in 184 (89 per cent) of the knees were satisfactory. Pain and the need for ambulatory aids were reduced, and the distance the patients could walk was increased. Twenty-three (11 per cent) of the 207 procedures were rated as failures. The major cause of failure was loosening of the components (tibial in twelve and femoral in one); there also were unexplained pain in five knees, problems with the opposite unreplaced compartment in three, technical error in one, and pain in the patellofemoral joint in one. Nine of 155 intraoperative specimens for bacterial culture obtained during unicompartmental arthroplasty were positive, and two specimens that were positive on culture were obtained during revision of twenty failed unicompartmental arthroplasties. No gross or histological evidence of infection was demonstrated at operation. Based on this study, we concluded that this procedure can provide satisfactory relief of pain, adequate knee motion, and increased levels of independence and activity for patients with unicompartmental disease who are not suitable candidates for proximal tibial osteotomy or total knee replacement.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?