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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Barrett, W. P.
Right arrow Articles by Scott, R. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Barrett, W. P.
Right arrow Articles by Scott, R. D.
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 69, Issue 9 1328-1335, Copyright © 1987 by Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc

JOURNAL CONTENTS

Revision of failed unicondylar unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

WP Barrett and RD Scott
Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts 02115.

In a retrospective review of the cases of twenty-nine patients who had a revision of a failed unicondylar unicompartmental knee replacement, the cause of failure of the original unicondylar arthroplasty was found to be loosening of one or both components in sixteen patients, progression of disease in the opposite compartment in nine, patellofemoral symptoms in two, ligamentous instability in one, and malposition of the tibial component in one. A technical error had been made in sixteen of the patients, and ten of the errors were associated with the ultimate failure of the original unicondylar procedure. Ninety-three per cent of the failed unicompartmental arthroplasties were revised using a posterior cruciate-sparing total knee replacement. Bone grafts, augmentation with screws and cement, a long-stem component, or a combination of these were used in half of the patients. The average follow-up after the revision arthroplasty was 4.6 years.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Am Acad Orthop SurgHome page
T. Borus and T. Thornhill
Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty
J. Am. Acad. Ortho. Surg., January 1, 2008; 16(1): 9 - 18.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
R. A. Berger, R. M. Meneghini, J. J. Jacobs, M. B. Sheinkop, C. J. Della Valle, A. G. Rosenberg, and J. O. Galante
Results of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty at a Minimum of Ten Years of Follow-up
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., May 1, 2005; 87(5): 999 - 1006.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
D. J. Howe, O. D. Taunton Jr., and G. A. Engh
Retained Cement After Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty. A Report of Four Cases
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., October 1, 2004; 86(10): 2283 - 2286.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
R. Iorio and W. L. Healy
Unicompartmental Arthritis of the Knee
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., July 3, 2003; 85(7): 1351 - 1364.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
A. D. Hanssen, M. J. Stuart, R. D. Scott, and G. R. Scuderi
Surgical Options for the Middle-Aged Patient with Osteoarthritis of the Knee Joint*{{dagger}}
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., December 1, 2000; 82(12): 1767 - 1767.
[Full Text]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
D. R. DIDUCH, J. N. INSALL, W. N. SCOTT, G. R. SCUDERI, and D. FONT-RODRIGUEZ
Total Knee Replacement in Young, Active Patients. Long-Term Follow-up and Functional Outcome
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., April 1, 1997; 79(4): 575 - 82.
[Abstract] [Full Text]