Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Purpose: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) combined with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has recently been suggested as a feasible treatment option for young and active patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis (OA) and ACL deficiency. The aim of this study is to evaluate retrospectively the outcomes of two different implant designs in patients with medial OA secondary to traumatic ACL rupture, who underwent combined ACL reconstruction and unicompartmental knee replacement.
Methods: From January 2007, to December 2013, 24 patients with medial OA secondary to ACL rupture underwent medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and ACL reconstruction. Nine patients received a mobile bearing UKA (Group 1) and fifteen a fixed-bearing one (Group 2). The mean follow-up was 53 ± 8.3 months for Group 1 and 42 ± 6.7 months for Group 2. Knee Society Score (KSS), Western Ontario and McMaster Index of Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index and radiological evaluation used to assess the implant loosening alignment of the knee joint and tibial slope were recorded pre-operatively and at the last follow-up.
Results: At the final follow-up, all patients showed statistically significant clinical improvements with respect to the pre-operative values (p < 0.05). No significant difference was observed in WOMAC index and KSS both objective and functional between groups at the last follow-up (KSS obj. 73.4 ± 9.3 vs 77.3 ± 10.5; KSS funct. 86.2 ± 6.2 vs 84.7 ± 5.9; WOMAC 79.3 ± 7.3 vs 81.3 ± 7.6 for Group 1 and 2, respectively). No differences in radiolucent lines were found between the groups.
Conclusion: The use of different prosthesis design (fixed- or mobile-bearing) during a combined procedure of ACL reconstruction and medial unicompartmental arthroplasty does not affect the middle-term clinical and radiological outcomes.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00264-019-04341-x | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!