Incidence and Reasons for Reoperation after Minimally Invasive Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty
The goal of this report is to review reoperations undertaken on the initial 221 unicompartmental arthroplasties performed using a minimally invasive technique. A comparison was then performed between these cases and the previous 514 open medial unicompartmental arthroplasties performed at our instit...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The Journal of arthroplasty 2006-09, Vol.21 (6), p.98-107 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 107 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | 98 |
| container_title | The Journal of arthroplasty |
| container_volume | 21 |
| creator | Hamilton, William G. Collier, Matthew B. Tarabee, Eshan McAuley, James P. Engh, C. Anderson Engh, Gerard A. |
| description | The goal of this report is to review reoperations undertaken on the initial 221 unicompartmental arthroplasties performed using a minimally invasive technique. A comparison was then performed between these cases and the previous 514 open medial unicompartmental arthroplasties performed at our institution. In the minimally invasive group, 9 (4.1%) of 221 knees were revised (8 for component loosening, 1 for deep infection). Of 212 unrevised knees, 16 have required a total of 18 nonrevision reoperations. Overall, 25 of 221 knees required at least 1 reoperation (total reoperation rate, 11.3%). Despite an accelerated recovery and decreased hospital stay in our minimally invasive unicompartmental arthroplasties, the rate of revision due to aseptic loosening (3.7% vs 1.0%) and the overall reoperation rate (11.3% vs 8.6%) compare unfavorably with those performed with an open technique. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.arth.2006.05.010 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68821693</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0883540306003779</els_id><sourcerecordid>68821693</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c354t-e609aa608347059b737bb73f483e63ffe8ab7299e587b07c248249addb78dafb3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEFr3DAQhUVpSTZp_kAPRafe7I4sy5ahlxCadGlKoTRnMZbHVIstuZJ3Yf99texCb7nMzOG9x7yPsQ8CSgGi-bwrMa5_ygqgKUGVIOAN2wglq0LX0LxlG9BaFqoGec1uUtoBCKFUfcWuRdMpgBY2DLfeuoG8JY5-4L8IU_CJjyHmOywUcXXBcxxXivyH827GaTryrT9gcgfiL97ZMC_5kZn8ihP_7on4ff4rhmXCtB7fs3cjTonuLvuWvTx-_f3wrXj--bR9uH8urFT1WlADHWIDWtYtqK5vZdvnMdZaUiPHkTT2bdV1pHTbQ2urWld1h8PQt3rAsZe37NM5d4nh757SamaXLE0Tegr7ZBqtq9xbZmF1FtoYUoo0miXmWvFoBJgTWLMzJ7DmBNaAMhlsNn28pO_7mYb_lgvJLPhyFlDueHAUTbLuxHVwkexqhuBey_8HtzGLRA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>68821693</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Incidence and Reasons for Reoperation after Minimally Invasive Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Hamilton, William G. ; Collier, Matthew B. ; Tarabee, Eshan ; McAuley, James P. ; Engh, C. Anderson ; Engh, Gerard A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Hamilton, William G. ; Collier, Matthew B. ; Tarabee, Eshan ; McAuley, James P. ; Engh, C. Anderson ; Engh, Gerard A.</creatorcontrib><description>The goal of this report is to review reoperations undertaken on the initial 221 unicompartmental arthroplasties performed using a minimally invasive technique. A comparison was then performed between these cases and the previous 514 open medial unicompartmental arthroplasties performed at our institution. In the minimally invasive group, 9 (4.1%) of 221 knees were revised (8 for component loosening, 1 for deep infection). Of 212 unrevised knees, 16 have required a total of 18 nonrevision reoperations. Overall, 25 of 221 knees required at least 1 reoperation (total reoperation rate, 11.3%). Despite an accelerated recovery and decreased hospital stay in our minimally invasive unicompartmental arthroplasties, the rate of revision due to aseptic loosening (3.7% vs 1.0%) and the overall reoperation rate (11.3% vs 8.6%) compare unfavorably with those performed with an open technique.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0883-5403</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-8406</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2006.05.010</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16950070</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - adverse effects ; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - methods ; complications ; Female ; Humans ; Knee Joint - diagnostic imaging ; Length of Stay ; Male ; Middle Aged ; minimally invasive ; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - adverse effects ; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - methods ; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - statistics & numerical data ; Prosthesis Failure ; Radiography ; reoperation ; Reoperation - statistics & numerical data ; Retrospective Studies ; Treatment Outcome ; unicompartmental arthroplasty</subject><ispartof>The Journal of arthroplasty, 2006-09, Vol.21 (6), p.98-107</ispartof><rights>2006</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c354t-e609aa608347059b737bb73f483e63ffe8ab7299e587b07c248249addb78dafb3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c354t-e609aa608347059b737bb73f483e63ffe8ab7299e587b07c248249addb78dafb3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2006.05.010$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16950070$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hamilton, William G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Collier, Matthew B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tarabee, Eshan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McAuley, James P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Engh, C. Anderson</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Engh, Gerard A.</creatorcontrib><title>Incidence and Reasons for Reoperation after Minimally Invasive Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty</title><title>The Journal of arthroplasty</title><addtitle>J Arthroplasty</addtitle><description>The goal of this report is to review reoperations undertaken on the initial 221 unicompartmental arthroplasties performed using a minimally invasive technique. A comparison was then performed between these cases and the previous 514 open medial unicompartmental arthroplasties performed at our institution. In the minimally invasive group, 9 (4.1%) of 221 knees were revised (8 for component loosening, 1 for deep infection). Of 212 unrevised knees, 16 have required a total of 18 nonrevision reoperations. Overall, 25 of 221 knees required at least 1 reoperation (total reoperation rate, 11.3%). Despite an accelerated recovery and decreased hospital stay in our minimally invasive unicompartmental arthroplasties, the rate of revision due to aseptic loosening (3.7% vs 1.0%) and the overall reoperation rate (11.3% vs 8.6%) compare unfavorably with those performed with an open technique.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - adverse effects</subject><subject>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - methods</subject><subject>complications</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Knee Joint - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Length of Stay</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>minimally invasive</subject><subject>Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - adverse effects</subject><subject>Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - methods</subject><subject>Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Prosthesis Failure</subject><subject>Radiography</subject><subject>reoperation</subject><subject>Reoperation - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>unicompartmental arthroplasty</subject><issn>0883-5403</issn><issn>1532-8406</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kEFr3DAQhUVpSTZp_kAPRafe7I4sy5ahlxCadGlKoTRnMZbHVIstuZJ3Yf99texCb7nMzOG9x7yPsQ8CSgGi-bwrMa5_ygqgKUGVIOAN2wglq0LX0LxlG9BaFqoGec1uUtoBCKFUfcWuRdMpgBY2DLfeuoG8JY5-4L8IU_CJjyHmOywUcXXBcxxXivyH827GaTryrT9gcgfiL97ZMC_5kZn8ihP_7on4ff4rhmXCtB7fs3cjTonuLvuWvTx-_f3wrXj--bR9uH8urFT1WlADHWIDWtYtqK5vZdvnMdZaUiPHkTT2bdV1pHTbQ2urWld1h8PQt3rAsZe37NM5d4nh757SamaXLE0Tegr7ZBqtq9xbZmF1FtoYUoo0miXmWvFoBJgTWLMzJ7DmBNaAMhlsNn28pO_7mYb_lgvJLPhyFlDueHAUTbLuxHVwkexqhuBey_8HtzGLRA</recordid><startdate>20060901</startdate><enddate>20060901</enddate><creator>Hamilton, William G.</creator><creator>Collier, Matthew B.</creator><creator>Tarabee, Eshan</creator><creator>McAuley, James P.</creator><creator>Engh, C. Anderson</creator><creator>Engh, Gerard A.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20060901</creationdate><title>Incidence and Reasons for Reoperation after Minimally Invasive Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty</title><author>Hamilton, William G. ; Collier, Matthew B. ; Tarabee, Eshan ; McAuley, James P. ; Engh, C. Anderson ; Engh, Gerard A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c354t-e609aa608347059b737bb73f483e63ffe8ab7299e587b07c248249addb78dafb3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - adverse effects</topic><topic>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - methods</topic><topic>complications</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Knee Joint - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Length of Stay</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>minimally invasive</topic><topic>Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - adverse effects</topic><topic>Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - methods</topic><topic>Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Prosthesis Failure</topic><topic>Radiography</topic><topic>reoperation</topic><topic>Reoperation - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>unicompartmental arthroplasty</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hamilton, William G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Collier, Matthew B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tarabee, Eshan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McAuley, James P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Engh, C. Anderson</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Engh, Gerard A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Journal of arthroplasty</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hamilton, William G.</au><au>Collier, Matthew B.</au><au>Tarabee, Eshan</au><au>McAuley, James P.</au><au>Engh, C. Anderson</au><au>Engh, Gerard A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Incidence and Reasons for Reoperation after Minimally Invasive Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of arthroplasty</jtitle><addtitle>J Arthroplasty</addtitle><date>2006-09-01</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>98</spage><epage>107</epage><pages>98-107</pages><issn>0883-5403</issn><eissn>1532-8406</eissn><abstract>The goal of this report is to review reoperations undertaken on the initial 221 unicompartmental arthroplasties performed using a minimally invasive technique. A comparison was then performed between these cases and the previous 514 open medial unicompartmental arthroplasties performed at our institution. In the minimally invasive group, 9 (4.1%) of 221 knees were revised (8 for component loosening, 1 for deep infection). Of 212 unrevised knees, 16 have required a total of 18 nonrevision reoperations. Overall, 25 of 221 knees required at least 1 reoperation (total reoperation rate, 11.3%). Despite an accelerated recovery and decreased hospital stay in our minimally invasive unicompartmental arthroplasties, the rate of revision due to aseptic loosening (3.7% vs 1.0%) and the overall reoperation rate (11.3% vs 8.6%) compare unfavorably with those performed with an open technique.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>16950070</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.arth.2006.05.010</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0883-5403 |
| ispartof | The Journal of arthroplasty, 2006-09, Vol.21 (6), p.98-107 |
| issn | 0883-5403 1532-8406 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68821693 |
| source | MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier) |
| subjects | Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - adverse effects Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - methods complications Female Humans Knee Joint - diagnostic imaging Length of Stay Male Middle Aged minimally invasive Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - adverse effects Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - methods Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - statistics & numerical data Prosthesis Failure Radiography reoperation Reoperation - statistics & numerical data Retrospective Studies Treatment Outcome unicompartmental arthroplasty |
| title | Incidence and Reasons for Reoperation after Minimally Invasive Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T08%3A23%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Incidence%20and%20Reasons%20for%20Reoperation%20after%20Minimally%20Invasive%20Unicompartmental%20Knee%20Arthroplasty&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20arthroplasty&rft.au=Hamilton,%20William%20G.&rft.date=2006-09-01&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=98&rft.epage=107&rft.pages=98-107&rft.issn=0883-5403&rft.eissn=1532-8406&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.arth.2006.05.010&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E68821693%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=68821693&rft_id=info:pmid/16950070&rft_els_id=S0883540306003779&rfr_iscdi=true |