Tibial component overhang following unicompartmental knee replacement: Does it matter?

R. Chau, A. Gulati, H. Pandit, D. J. Beard, A. J. Price, C. A. Dodd, H. S. Gill, D. W. Murray

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

65 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

As implants are made in incremental sizes and usually do not fit perfectly, surgeons have to decide if it is preferable to over or undersize the components. This is particularly important for unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) tibial components, as overhang may cause irritation of soft tissues and pain, whereas underhang may cause loosening. One hundred and sixty Oxford UKRs were categorised according to whether they had minor (or=3 mm, 9%) tibial overhang, or tibial underhang (21%). One year post surgery, there was no significant difference in outcome between the groups. Five years after surgery, those with major overhang had significantly worse Oxford Knee Scores (OKS) (p=0.001) and pain scores (p=0.001) than the others. The difference in scores was substantial (OKS=10 points). There was no difference between the 'minor overhang' and the 'underhang' group. We conclude that surgeons must avoid tibial component overhang of 3 mm or more, as this severely compromises the outcome. Although this study showed no difference between minor overhang or underhang, we would advise against significant underhang because of the theoretical risk of component subsidence and loosening.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)310-313
Number of pages4
JournalThe Knee
Volume16
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2009

Fingerprint

Knee Replacement Arthroplasties
Knee
Nociceptive Pain
Pain
Surgeons

Cite this

Chau, R., Gulati, A., Pandit, H., Beard, D. J., Price, A. J., Dodd, C. A., ... Murray, D. W. (2009). Tibial component overhang following unicompartmental knee replacement: Does it matter? The Knee, 16(5), 310-313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2008.12.017

Tibial component overhang following unicompartmental knee replacement : Does it matter? / Chau, R.; Gulati, A.; Pandit, H.; Beard, D. J.; Price, A. J.; Dodd, C. A.; Gill, H. S.; Murray, D. W.

In: The Knee, Vol. 16, No. 5, 2009, p. 310-313.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Chau, R, Gulati, A, Pandit, H, Beard, DJ, Price, AJ, Dodd, CA, Gill, HS & Murray, DW 2009, 'Tibial component overhang following unicompartmental knee replacement: Does it matter?', The Knee, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 310-313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2008.12.017
Chau, R. ; Gulati, A. ; Pandit, H. ; Beard, D. J. ; Price, A. J. ; Dodd, C. A. ; Gill, H. S. ; Murray, D. W. / Tibial component overhang following unicompartmental knee replacement : Does it matter?. In: The Knee. 2009 ; Vol. 16, No. 5. pp. 310-313.
@article{a2d0578ec65649cabee6edbe8c842bec,
title = "Tibial component overhang following unicompartmental knee replacement: Does it matter?",
abstract = "As implants are made in incremental sizes and usually do not fit perfectly, surgeons have to decide if it is preferable to over or undersize the components. This is particularly important for unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) tibial components, as overhang may cause irritation of soft tissues and pain, whereas underhang may cause loosening. One hundred and sixty Oxford UKRs were categorised according to whether they had minor (or=3 mm, 9{\%}) tibial overhang, or tibial underhang (21{\%}). One year post surgery, there was no significant difference in outcome between the groups. Five years after surgery, those with major overhang had significantly worse Oxford Knee Scores (OKS) (p=0.001) and pain scores (p=0.001) than the others. The difference in scores was substantial (OKS=10 points). There was no difference between the 'minor overhang' and the 'underhang' group. We conclude that surgeons must avoid tibial component overhang of 3 mm or more, as this severely compromises the outcome. Although this study showed no difference between minor overhang or underhang, we would advise against significant underhang because of the theoretical risk of component subsidence and loosening.",
author = "R. Chau and A. Gulati and H. Pandit and Beard, {D. J.} and Price, {A. J.} and Dodd, {C. A.} and Gill, {H. S.} and Murray, {D. W.}",
year = "2009",
doi = "10.1016/j.knee.2008.12.017",
language = "English",
volume = "16",
pages = "310--313",
journal = "The Knee",
issn = "0968-0160",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Tibial component overhang following unicompartmental knee replacement

T2 - Does it matter?

AU - Chau, R.

AU - Gulati, A.

AU - Pandit, H.

AU - Beard, D. J.

AU - Price, A. J.

AU - Dodd, C. A.

AU - Gill, H. S.

AU - Murray, D. W.

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - As implants are made in incremental sizes and usually do not fit perfectly, surgeons have to decide if it is preferable to over or undersize the components. This is particularly important for unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) tibial components, as overhang may cause irritation of soft tissues and pain, whereas underhang may cause loosening. One hundred and sixty Oxford UKRs were categorised according to whether they had minor (or=3 mm, 9%) tibial overhang, or tibial underhang (21%). One year post surgery, there was no significant difference in outcome between the groups. Five years after surgery, those with major overhang had significantly worse Oxford Knee Scores (OKS) (p=0.001) and pain scores (p=0.001) than the others. The difference in scores was substantial (OKS=10 points). There was no difference between the 'minor overhang' and the 'underhang' group. We conclude that surgeons must avoid tibial component overhang of 3 mm or more, as this severely compromises the outcome. Although this study showed no difference between minor overhang or underhang, we would advise against significant underhang because of the theoretical risk of component subsidence and loosening.

AB - As implants are made in incremental sizes and usually do not fit perfectly, surgeons have to decide if it is preferable to over or undersize the components. This is particularly important for unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) tibial components, as overhang may cause irritation of soft tissues and pain, whereas underhang may cause loosening. One hundred and sixty Oxford UKRs were categorised according to whether they had minor (or=3 mm, 9%) tibial overhang, or tibial underhang (21%). One year post surgery, there was no significant difference in outcome between the groups. Five years after surgery, those with major overhang had significantly worse Oxford Knee Scores (OKS) (p=0.001) and pain scores (p=0.001) than the others. The difference in scores was substantial (OKS=10 points). There was no difference between the 'minor overhang' and the 'underhang' group. We conclude that surgeons must avoid tibial component overhang of 3 mm or more, as this severely compromises the outcome. Although this study showed no difference between minor overhang or underhang, we would advise against significant underhang because of the theoretical risk of component subsidence and loosening.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=69049119172&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=19188069

UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2008.12.017

U2 - 10.1016/j.knee.2008.12.017

DO - 10.1016/j.knee.2008.12.017

M3 - Article

VL - 16

SP - 310

EP - 313

JO - The Knee

JF - The Knee

SN - 0968-0160

IS - 5

ER -