Oxford meniscal bearing knee versus the Marmor knee in unicompartmental arthroplasty for arthrosis. A Swedish multicenter survival study
(1995) In Journal of Arthroplasty 10(6). p.722-731- Abstract
- In the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Study, all 699 Oxford meniscal bearing cemented unicompartmental prostheses (Biomet, Bridgend, UK) were identified and analyzed regarding failure pattern and compared with all Marmor prostheses (Smith & Nephew Richards, Orthez, France) and with a time-, age-, and sex-matched subset of Marmor prostheses using survival statistics expressed as cumulative revision rates. After 1 year there was already a higher rate, and after 6 years the rate of the Oxford group was more than twice that of the Marmor group. There were 50 revisions in the Oxford group: dislocating meniscus in 16, loosening of the femoral component in 6, tibial component in 4, both components in 4, contralateral arthrosis in 10, infection in... (More)
- In the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Study, all 699 Oxford meniscal bearing cemented unicompartmental prostheses (Biomet, Bridgend, UK) were identified and analyzed regarding failure pattern and compared with all Marmor prostheses (Smith & Nephew Richards, Orthez, France) and with a time-, age-, and sex-matched subset of Marmor prostheses using survival statistics expressed as cumulative revision rates. After 1 year there was already a higher rate, and after 6 years the rate of the Oxford group was more than twice that of the Marmor group. There were 50 revisions in the Oxford group: dislocating meniscus in 16, loosening of the femoral component in 6, tibial component in 4, both components in 4, contralateral arthrosis in 10, infection in 4, and technical failure with instability, pain, and/or impingement of the meniscal bearing anterior in the femoral condyle in 6. It is still unclear if the design with the sliding menisci will, in the long turn, reduce wear and loosening, thereby compensating for the initially inferior results. It is recommended that until this question is clarified, the Oxford knee should be used on a limited scale for long-term comparative studies only. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/1109172
- author
- Lewold, Stefan LU ; Goodman, Stuart ; Knutson, Kaj LU ; Robertsson, Otto LU and Lidgren, Lars LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 1995
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- cumulative revision rate, unicompartmental prostheses, knee protheses
- in
- Journal of Arthroplasty
- volume
- 10
- issue
- 6
- pages
- 722 - 731
- publisher
- Elsevier
- external identifiers
-
- pmid:8749752
- scopus:0029618671
- ISSN
- 0883-5403
- DOI
- 10.1016/S0883-5403(05)80066-X
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 3334b95f-1d8f-40d6-94bf-ebab1900c59d (old id 1109172)
- date added to LUP
- 2016-04-01 11:52:02
- date last changed
- 2021-10-10 03:10:42
@article{3334b95f-1d8f-40d6-94bf-ebab1900c59d,
abstract = {{In the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Study, all 699 Oxford meniscal bearing cemented unicompartmental prostheses (Biomet, Bridgend, UK) were identified and analyzed regarding failure pattern and compared with all Marmor prostheses (Smith & Nephew Richards, Orthez, France) and with a time-, age-, and sex-matched subset of Marmor prostheses using survival statistics expressed as cumulative revision rates. After 1 year there was already a higher rate, and after 6 years the rate of the Oxford group was more than twice that of the Marmor group. There were 50 revisions in the Oxford group: dislocating meniscus in 16, loosening of the femoral component in 6, tibial component in 4, both components in 4, contralateral arthrosis in 10, infection in 4, and technical failure with instability, pain, and/or impingement of the meniscal bearing anterior in the femoral condyle in 6. It is still unclear if the design with the sliding menisci will, in the long turn, reduce wear and loosening, thereby compensating for the initially inferior results. It is recommended that until this question is clarified, the Oxford knee should be used on a limited scale for long-term comparative studies only.}},
author = {{Lewold, Stefan and Goodman, Stuart and Knutson, Kaj and Robertsson, Otto and Lidgren, Lars}},
issn = {{0883-5403}},
keywords = {{cumulative revision rate; unicompartmental prostheses; knee protheses}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{6}},
pages = {{722--731}},
publisher = {{Elsevier}},
series = {{Journal of Arthroplasty}},
title = {{Oxford meniscal bearing knee versus the Marmor knee in unicompartmental arthroplasty for arthrosis. A Swedish multicenter survival study}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0883-5403(05)80066-X}},
doi = {{10.1016/S0883-5403(05)80066-X}},
volume = {{10}},
year = {{1995}},
}