The Journal of Practical Medicine >
Distribution patterns and predictive study of oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty prosthesis sizes: A retrospective analysis based on 270 clinical cases
Received date: 2025-04-14
Online published: 2025-07-29
Objective To investigate the distribution characteristics of model numbers associated with the third-generation Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) prostheses, in order to provide evidence-based guidance for the selection of appropriate UKA prostheses in clinical practice. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on data from 270 patients who underwent UKA using third-generation Oxford prostheses and fulfilled the inclusion criteria between April 2019 and September 2023. Patient characteristics, including gender, age, height, weight, affected side, and prosthesis model numbers, were collected and recorded. The distribution and matching patterns of femoral and tibial prosthesis model numbers were evaluated. Multiple ordinal logistic regression analyses and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were employed to identify significant predictors influencing the selection of femoral component models. Additionally, a parameter distribution map related to UKA prosthesis model numbers was developed. Results Among the femoral prostheses, the XS size accounted for 21.5%, S for 44.1%, M for 26.3%, and L for 8.1%. Regarding tibial prostheses, AA represented 11.1%, A 23.7%, B 29.3%, C 18.9%, D 10.4%, and E 6.7%. The matching rates between tibial and femoral components were as follows: 93.3% for tibial AA corresponding to femoral XS, 96.0% for tibial A/B corresponding to femoral S, 95.8% for tibial C/D corresponding to femoral M, and 91.7% for tibial E corresponding to femoral L, resulting in an overall matching rate of 95.2%. Height (AUC = 90.63%), gender (AUC = 81.59%), and weight (AUC = 84.47%) showed significant correlations with femoral model selection (P < 0.01), whereas age and side did not demonstrate statistical significance. The S femoral model was predominantly used in female patients (59.6%), while the M and L models were more commonly utilized in male patients (65.2%). When female patients' height was ≤160 cm, the combined usage rate of the XS and S models exceeded 90%. For male patients taller than 175 cm, the utilization rate of the L model reached 88.9%. The accuracy rate of preoperative prediction based on height and gender was 70.7%, which improved to 77.0% when incorporating intraoperative tibial model information. Conclusions The distribution of UKA prostheses in the study population differed from that observed in Western populations, as well as from other regions in Asia and China. The distribution map of UKA prostheses and the corresponding matching rules established in this study demonstrate a high level of predictive accuracy, which can effectively support preoperative planning and intraoperative selection of femoral prosthesis model numbers.
Kang XU , Shucai BAI , Xiaohui. LI . Distribution patterns and predictive study of oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty prosthesis sizes: A retrospective analysis based on 270 clinical cases[J]. The Journal of Practical Medicine, 2025 , 41(14) : 2243 -2249 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-5725.2025.14.018
| [1] | PLANCHER K D , VOIGT C , BERNSTEIN D N , et al . Return to Sport in Middle-aged and Older Athletes After Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty at a Mean 10-Year Follow-up: Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes [J]. Am J Sports Med, 2023, 51(7): 1799-1807. doi:10.1177/03635465231163859 |
| [2] | SONG K , QI L , MU Z , et al . Health-related quality of life after total knee arthroplasty and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for unicompartmental osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis [J]. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong), 2024, 32(2): 10225536241256245. doi:10.1177/10225536241256245 |
| [3] | BLEVINS J L , CARROLL K M , BURGER J A , et al . Postoperative outcomes of total knee arthroplasty compared to unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: A matched comparison [J]. Knee, 2020, 27(2): 565-571. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2019.12.005 |
| [4] | ELKJ?R CHRISTENSEN A L , BREDGAARD JENSEN C , GROMOV K , et al . Champions in usage of medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: The story behind the Danish success [J]. Orthopadie (Heidelb), 2024, 53(4): 246-254. doi:10.1007/s00132-024-04477-8 |
| [5] | 李朝晖, 黎文勇, 蓝国波, 等 . 单髁置换术联合髌骨成形术在膝关节双间室病变的疗效分析 [J]. 实用医学杂志, 2021, 37(15): 2030-2034. |
| [6] | BRILLIANT Z R , GARVEY M D , HAFFNER R , et al . Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Patients Have Lower Joint Awareness and Higher Function at 5 Years Compared to Total Knee Arthroplasties: A Matched Comparison [J]. J Arthroplasty, 2023, 38(8): 1464-1469. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2023.01.063 |
| [7] | D'AMBROSI R , URSINO C , MARIANI I , et al . Clinical outcomes, complications, and survivorship for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty in patients aged 80 years and older with isolated medial knee osteoarthritis: A matched cohort analysis [J]. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 2023, 143(10): 6371-6379. doi:10.1007/s00402-023-04916-9 |
| [8] | LEVY K H , FUSCO P J , SALAZAR-RESTREPO S A , et al . Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revised to total knee arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis of matched studies [J]. Knee, 2023, 45: 1-10. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2023.09.001 |
| [9] | SCHEELE C B , PIETSCHMANN M F , WAGNER T C , et al . Conversion of UKA to TKA using identical standard implants-How does it compare to primary UKA, primary TKA and revision TKA? [J]. Arthroplasty, 2024, 6(1): 48. doi:10.1186/s42836-024-00267-x |
| [10] | 边焱焱, 程开源, 常晓, 等 . 2011至2019年中国人工髋膝关节置换手术量的初步统计与分析 [J]. 中华骨科杂志, 2020, 40(21): 1453-1460. |
| [11] | 刘志超, 付立新, 崔彦江, 等 . Oxford单髁与全膝关节置换治疗内侧膝骨关节炎的双中心对照研究 [J]. 实用医学杂志, 2021, 37(19): 2487-2491. |
| [12] | WANG F X , XUE H M , MA T , et al . Prosthesis size distribution in Oxford phase Ⅲ unicompartmental knee arthroplasty-Based on more than 1900 Chinese patients [J]. J Othop, 2021, 25: 230-236. doi:10.1016/j.jor.2021.05.019 |
| [13] | FRATINI S , MEENA A , ALESI D , et al . Does Implant Design Influence Failure Rate of Lateral Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty? A Meta-Analysis[J]. J Arthroplasty, 2022, 37(5): 985-992.e3. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2022.01.068 |
| [14] | DI MARTINO A , BORDINI B , BARILE F , et al . Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty has higher revisions than total knee arthroplasty at long term follow-up: A registry study on 6453 prostheses [J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2021, 29(10): 3323-3329. doi:10.1007/s00167-020-06184-1 |
| [15] | MITTAL A , MESHRAM P , KIM W H , et al . Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, an enigma, and the ten enigmas of medial UKA [J]. J Orthop Traumatol, 2020, 21(1): 15. doi:10.1186/s10195-020-00551-x |
| [16] | D'AMBROSI R , SILVA M DA , MOURA J L M , et al . Radiographic and Clinical Evolution of the Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty [J]. J Knee Surg, 2023, 36(3): 246-253. doi:10.1055/s-0041-1731718 |
| [17] | MALHOTRA R , GABA S , WAHAL N , et al . Femoral Component Sizing in Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacement: Existing Guidelines Do Not Work for Indian Patients [J]. J Knee Surg, 2019, 32(3): 205-210. doi:10.1055/s-0038-1635113 |
| [18] | FAWZY E , PANDIT H , JENKINS C , et al . Determination of femoral component size in unicompartmental knee replacement [J]. Knee, 2008, 15(5): 403-406. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2008.05.011 |
| [19] | KASIS A G , PACHECO R J , HEKAL W , et al . The precision and accuracy of templating the size of unicondylar knee arthroplasty [J].Knee, 2004, 11(5): 395-398. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2004.06.003 |
| [20] | BOTHRA V , LEMON G , LANG D , et al . Reliability of templating in estimating the size of uni-condylar knee arthroplasty [J]. J Arthroplasty, 2003, 18(6): 780-783. doi:10.1016/s0883-5403(03)00112-8 |
| [21] | RUANGSOMBOON P , PAUGCHAWEE J , NARKBUNNAM R , et al . The factors influencing the component sizes in Oxford Phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty [J]. Jt Dis Relat Surg, 2022, 33(3): 505-512. doi:10.52312/jdrs.2022.786 |
| [22] | MURRAY D W , PARKINSON R W . Usage of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty [J]. Bone Joint J, 2018, 100-b(4): 432-435. doi:10.1302/0301-620x.100b4.bjj-2017-0716.r1 |
| [23] | PANDIT H , JENKINS C , BARKER K , et al . The Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement using a minimally-invasive approach [J]. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 2006, 88(1): 54-60. doi:10.1302/0301-620x.88b1.17114 |
| [24] | 薛华明, 蔡珉巍, 马童, 等 . 基于国人205例Oxford3代单髁置换假体尺寸的临床研究 [J]. 中华关节外科杂志:电子版, 2013, 7(4): 454-458. |
| [25] | PANDIT H , HAMILTON T W , JENKINS C , et al . The clinical outcome of minimally invasive Phase 3 Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty:A 15-year follow-up of 1000 UKAs [J]. Bone Joint J, 2015, 97-b(11): 1493-1500. doi:10.1302/0301-620x.97b11.35634 |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |