Revision total knee replacement after primary UKR versus primary TKR

MAA Hassaballa, A Porteous, JH Newman

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference 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 unit’s Knee Database. 45 were revisions of UKR’s and 79 revisions of TKR’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 contributionRevision total knee replacement after primary UKR versus primary TKR
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationBASK, Lake Windermere
Pages446
Number of pages1
Volume86-B
Publication statusPublished - 2004

Bibliographical note

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

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Revision total knee replacement after primary UKR versus primary TKR'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Hassaballa, MAA., Porteous, A., & Newman, JH. (2004). Revision total knee replacement after primary UKR versus primary TKR. In BASK, Lake Windermere (Vol. 86-B, pp. 446)