Patellofemoral arthroplasty.

Journal and index pages often block iframe embedding. This reader keeps the evidence details in Orthonotes and leaves the source page one click away.

Abstract

[Indexed for MEDLINE] 2. J ISAKOS. 2024 Dec;9(6):100324. doi: 10.1016/j.jisako.2024.100324. Epub 2024 Oct 15. Polyethylene wear in metal-backed tibial components in unicompartmental knee prostheses. Makaram NS(1), Yapp LZ(2), Bowley ALW(3), Garner A(4), Scott CEH(2). Author information: (1)Edinburgh Orthopaedics, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH16 4SA, UK; University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH164SA, UK. Electronic address: nmakaram@ed.ac.uk. (2)Edinburgh Orthopaedics, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH16 4SA, UK; University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH164SA, UK. (3)University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH164SA, UK. (4)Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Windmill Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK; Imperial College London, White City Campus, 80-92 Wood Lane, London, W12 0BZ, UK. The utilization of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has increased worldwide and has become a favourable alternative to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in patients with isolated single-compartment knee osteoarthritis. With the increase in UKA utilization, there has been an increase in the number of revisions. The two most common causes of revision are the progression of osteoarthritis in other compartments and aseptic loosening with polyethylene wear, with other common causes for revision including periprosthetic fracture, bearing dislocation, infection, instability and unexplained pain. This narrative review will outline how UKA implant design has evolved and specifically outlines important differences in wear biomechanics, survival and clinical outcomes between the most commonly employed implant designs: metal-backed (MB) versus all-polyethylene (AP) and fixed-bearing (FB) versus mobile-bearing (MoB) MB tibial components. Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1016/j.jisako.2024.100324