Similar clinical and radiographic outcomes after two different hypoallergenic medial unicompartmental knee in patients with metal allergy
- PMID: 35643948
- DOI: 10.1007/s00590-022-03295-y
Similar clinical and radiographic outcomes after two different hypoallergenic medial unicompartmental knee in patients with metal allergy
Abstract
Background: The purpose in the present study was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes of patients who had undergone a mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) with either titanium niobium nitride (TiNbN) alloy implants or with fixed-bearing oxidized zirconium alloy implants.
Methods: The records of two consecutive cohorts for a total of 86 hypoallergenic implants were prospectively analyzed. The first cohort consisted of 49 consecutive implantations of the hypoallergenic UKA Journey Uni Oxinium (Ox Group), while the second consisted of 37 consecutive series of UKA Oxford (TiNbN Group). All patients were evaluated by two independent surgeons who were not involved in the index surgery. The clinical evaluation consisted of evaluating each patient's Oxford Knee Score and Knee Society Score day before surgery (T0), and with two consecutive follow-ups at T1 (minimum follow-up 9 months) and T2 (minimum follow-up 24 months).
Results: The two groups were homogeneous in all preoperative values, except Body Mass Index (BMI) and duration of final follow-up [both statistically higher (p < 0.05) in the TiNbN group]. Both groups showed a clinically significant improvement for all scores at final follow-up (p < 0.05). The only differences between the two groups involved a higher pre-operative Oxford Score in TiNbN group (p = 0.031), and different tibial and femoral angles at the final follow-up.
Conclusions: Both TiNbN and Oxinium UKA procedures enabled patients from good to excellent clinical and radiographic outcomes after the final follow-up, regardless of the age, gender, BMI bearing type, and implant size.
Level of evidence: LEVEL II: Comparative study.
Keywords: Hypoallergenic implants; Metal hypersensitivity; Oxinium; Titanium niobium nitride; Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty; Zirconium.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature.
References
-
- Roberts TT, Haines CM, Uhl RL (2017) Allergic or hypersensitivity reactions to orthopaedic implants. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 25:693–702. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-16-00007 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Willert HG, Buchhorn GH, Fayyazi A, Flury R, Windler M, Köster G, Lohmann CH (2005) Metal-on-metal bearings and hypersensitivity in patients with artificial hip joints. A clinical and histomorphological study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 87:28–36. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.A.02039pp .
-
- Hallab N, Merritt K, Jacobs JJ (2001) Metal sensitivity in patients with orthopaedic implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83:428–436. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200103000-00017 (PMID: 11263649) - DOI - PubMed
-
- Desai MM, Shah KA, Mohapatra A, Patel DC (2019) Prevalence of metal hypersensitivity in total knee replacement. J Orthop 16:468–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2019.05.005 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
-
- Innes MB, Atwater AR (2020) Orthopedic Implant Hypersensitivity Reactions: Concepts and Controversies. Dermatol Clin 38:361–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.det.2020.02.005 - DOI - PubMed
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials