Cet article a été publié dans un numéro de la revue, cliquez ici pour y accéder
In selected patients with failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), revision UKA is a reliable option and may even provide lower morbidity rates and better functional outcomes compared to revision total knee arthroplasty.
Material and methods
In a multicentre retrospective study of 425 knees requiring revision surgery after UKA, 36 knees were managed with revision UKA.
Of the 36 knees, 3 (8.33%) required iterative revision surgery, for aseptic loosening. After a mean follow-up of 8.3 years, the mean IKS knee and function scores were high (93.81/100 and 90.77/100, respectively).
In carefully selected patients, UKA-to-UKA revision performed according to a rigorous operative technique deserves a role in the surgical strategy for failed UKA.
Level of evidence
III, multicentre retrospective case-control study.Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.
Keywords : Knee arthroplasty, Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, Failure, Revision