Revision total knee replacement after primary UKR versus primary TKR

MAA Hassaballa; A Porteous; JH Newman

Revision total knee replacement after primary UKR versus primary TKR

MAA Hassaballa, A Porteous, JH Newman

Bristol Medical School (THS)

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Conference Contribution (Conference Proceeding)

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the functional results and ease of performing revision surgery after a primary unicompartmental arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty. Method: 114 revision TKRs had data collected prospectively as part of our unitâ€™s Knee Database. 45 were revisions of UKRâ€™s and 79 revisions of TKRâ€™s. This data included Bristol Knee Scores (BKS), reason for revision, use of implant augments and bone graft. Measurements were also made of the ability to restore joint-line after revision. Results: In both groups there was a significant improvement in BKS post-operatively. In the UKR group the commonest reason for revision was progression of disease, while in the TKR group it was aseptic loosening. Bone graft was required in significantly fewer UKR cases (20% vs 40%, P

Translated title of the contribution	Revision total knee replacement after primary UKR versus primary TKR
Original language	English
Title of host publication	BASK, Lake Windermere
Pages	446
Number of pages	1
Volume	86-B
Publication status	Published - 2004

Bibliographical note

Conference Proceedings/Title of Journal: Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British Volume

Handle.net

Persistent link

Cite this

@inproceedings{35d31d5c2feb47718d10fe6942361383,

title = "Revision total knee replacement after primary UKR versus primary TKR",

abstract = "Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the functional results and ease of performing revision surgery after a primary unicompartmental arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty. Method: 114 revision TKRs had data collected prospectively as part of our unit{\^a}€{\texttrademark}s Knee Database. 45 were revisions of UKR{\^a}€{\texttrademark}s and 79 revisions of TKR{\^a}€{\texttrademark}s. This data included Bristol Knee Scores (BKS), reason for revision, use of implant augments and bone graft. Measurements were also made of the ability to restore joint-line after revision. Results: In both groups there was a significant improvement in BKS post-operatively. In the UKR group the commonest reason for revision was progression of disease, while in the TKR group it was aseptic loosening. Bone graft was required in significantly fewer UKR cases (20% vs 40%, P",

author = "MAA Hassaballa and A Porteous and JH Newman",

note = "Conference Proceedings/Title of Journal: Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British Volume",

year = "2004",

language = "English",

volume = "86-B",

pages = "446",

booktitle = "BASK, Lake Windermere",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - Revision total knee replacement after primary UKR versus primary TKR

AU - Hassaballa, MAA

AU - Porteous, A

AU - Newman, JH

N1 - Conference Proceedings/Title of Journal: Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British Volume

PY - 2004

Y1 - 2004

N2 - Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the functional results and ease of performing revision surgery after a primary unicompartmental arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty. Method: 114 revision TKRs had data collected prospectively as part of our unitâ€™s Knee Database. 45 were revisions of UKRâ€™s and 79 revisions of TKRâ€™s. This data included Bristol Knee Scores (BKS), reason for revision, use of implant augments and bone graft. Measurements were also made of the ability to restore joint-line after revision. Results: In both groups there was a significant improvement in BKS post-operatively. In the UKR group the commonest reason for revision was progression of disease, while in the TKR group it was aseptic loosening. Bone graft was required in significantly fewer UKR cases (20% vs 40%, P

AB - Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the functional results and ease of performing revision surgery after a primary unicompartmental arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty. Method: 114 revision TKRs had data collected prospectively as part of our unitâ€™s Knee Database. 45 were revisions of UKRâ€™s and 79 revisions of TKRâ€™s. This data included Bristol Knee Scores (BKS), reason for revision, use of implant augments and bone graft. Measurements were also made of the ability to restore joint-line after revision. Results: In both groups there was a significant improvement in BKS post-operatively. In the UKR group the commonest reason for revision was progression of disease, while in the TKR group it was aseptic loosening. Bone graft was required in significantly fewer UKR cases (20% vs 40%, P

M3 - Conference Contribution (Conference Proceeding)

VL - 86-B

SP - 446

BT - BASK, Lake Windermere

ER -

Revision total knee replacement after primary UKR versus primary TKR

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Handle.net

Fingerprint

Cite this