单髁膝关节置换术的并发症
Complications of Unicompartmental Knee Replacement Surgery
摘要: 单髁膝关节置换术是一种非常有效的治疗孤立性骨关节炎的治疗方法。虽然单髁膝关节置换术有手术切口小、损伤小、康复快等优点,但其不断增多的并发症仍需引起我们的注意。本文将讨论单髁膝关节置换术的四种最常见原因,包括无菌性松动、垫片磨损、假体周围骨折和对侧间室关节炎进展,以及如何避免及治疗。
Abstract: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is a highly effective treatment for isolated osteoarthritis. Although unicompartmental knee replacement surgery has the advantages of small surgical incision, minimal injury, and fast recovery, its increasing complications still need our attention. This article will discuss the four most common reasons for unicompartmental knee replacement surgery, including aseptic loosening, pad wear, periprosthetic fractures, and progression of contralateral ventricular arthritis, as well as how to avoid and treat them.
文章引用:曾昭荣, 徐忠世. 单髁膝关节置换术的并发症[J]. 临床医学进展, 2025, 15(8): 705-711. https://doi.org/10.12677/acm.2025.1582286

1. 引言

膝关节骨关节炎(Knee Osteoarthritis, KOA)是一种以膝关节软骨退行性病理改变为基础的慢性疾病。KOA是导致老年人残疾的最常见退行性疾病之一。有研究表明KOA已经成为影响老年患者生活质量的主要病因[1]。对于早期轻度的患者可采取保守治疗,如调整运动方式、应用非甾体抗炎药、关节内注射药物、支具保护等,可以取得良好的效果。而保守治疗效果较差的患者,则需要采取手术治疗。现临床上多采用全膝关节置换术(total knee arthroplasty, TKA)。但据统计,其中有30%以上的患者为单间室破坏,对于膝单间室骨性关节炎一般常用手术方式有胫骨高位截骨术(high tibial osteotomy, HTO)、TKA、单髁置换术(unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, UKA) [2]。随着单髁置换术的不断发展,UKA仅限于膝关节内侧或外侧间室的表面置换,针对膝关节单间室骨性关节炎的治疗,UKA未破坏其他正常关节间室,保留了前后交叉韧带及伸膝装置,因此术后患者的本体感觉更好,术中所需截骨量少,即使手术失败后也易于行全膝关节置换术(Total knee arthroplasty, TKA),除此之外,UKA手术切口小、损伤少、康复快等特点更加突出了其在治疗单间室骨性关节炎的优势[3]。随着UKA手术数量的增加,其手术相关并发症需要引起我们的重视,本文对四个单髁置换手术常见并发症做一文献综述,来叙述目前学术界对于该问题的认识。

2. 材料及方法

在中文数据库中国知网、以“单髁膝关节置换”、“并发症”为关键词进行检索,在PubMed数据库中以“UKA”、“unicompartmental knee arthroplasty”、“unicompartmental knee replacement”为关键词进行检索,检索时间为各数据库建立至2025年5月1日,优先选择具有高证据等级的近15年发表的文献。稿件标题和摘要由一位作者根据下述纳入和排除标准进行独立筛选,讨论所有纳入冲突,并就是否应纳入该文章达成共识。通过初步标题和摘要筛选的文章在全文筛选中遵循相同的审稿流程。全文筛选中纳入冲突的解决方式与标题和摘要筛选相同。文献纳入标准:① 随机对照试验;系统评价;② 研究假体松动、垫片磨损、假体周围骨折、关节炎发展的文献;③ 相似研究内容,优先选择研究证据等级更高的文献。文献排除标准:① 重复发表、无法获取全文的文献;② 英文、中文以外语种的文献;③ 研究不包含上述四种并发症。

3. 假体松动

无菌性松动是UKA后最常见的失效模式,占总失效的36%,占早期(<5年)失效的26% [4]。假体松动的相关因素包括年龄较小、BMI较大、垫片选择及固定方法、股骨假体设计及手术技术等。

在垫片选择上,有研究表明全聚乙烯垫片设计在多达37%的病例中会松动。其原因可能是全聚乙烯衬垫磨损产生的微小的聚乙烯颗粒,可引起骨溶解进而导致假体松动,因此应避免[5]。关于固定,Gutpa等人在新西兰进行的一项注册研究和Ohammed等人的系统综述发现,与用骨水泥UKA相比,无骨水泥UKA的翻修率较低[6] [7],这可能是由于用骨水泥UKA因感染、骨折而进行翻修的风险更高[8]。因此关于选择骨水泥或无水泥UKA尚未达成共识。

股骨假体设计也与UKA后的假体松动有关。早期大多UKA股骨假体采用单柱固定,容易出现应力集中,导致假体松动。从生物力学上,有研究表明双钉股骨假体设计显示出更高的尸体生物力学载荷导致失效[9]。因此,目前临床上多采用股骨双柱假体,可降低此类并发症[10]

手术技巧在避免无菌性松动方面同样至关重要。多位作者报道,由于假体错位和骨水泥固定不充分,会导致无菌性松动和更高的翻修率[11]-[13]。胫骨假体松动通常与假体错位有关,内侧关节间隙降低超过2 mm,或内翻角对准大于4度或5度是UKA后移位和松动的危险因素[14] [15]。股骨假体松动常与骨水泥固定不充分有关。因此术中组件的对准、尺寸和定位是至关重要的。此外为预防股骨假体松动,安装假体可常规对股骨钻多个小孔,增加骨水泥与骨质之间的接触面积,以便形成强大的微观绞索,从而达到牢靠的固定效果[10]

总之为预防假体松动,我们要把握好适应症,选择合适的垫片,使用股骨双柱假体,术中对位准确,骨水泥充分与假体、骨质接触或可以通过计算机和机器人导航的能力,以提高一致性和最小化可变性。一旦发生假体松动或下沉,可根据松动情况选择单纯更换假体,但是临床上更倾向于选择TKA进行翻修,对于存在骨缺损可以用自体骨移植修复。

4. 垫片磨损

从历史上看,聚乙烯磨损是UKA失效的主要原因,但现在仅占早期(<5年)的1%,中期(5~10年)的6%,晚期(10年) UKA失效的10%。垫片磨损的相关危险因素包括垫片的选择、股骨假体与胫骨假体对位及匹配情况、前交叉韧带缺陷等。

选择合适的垫片对于降低早期垫片磨损的风险至关重要。历史上,已有研究调查了膝关节置换术中所需聚乙烯的临界厚度,当使用传统聚乙烯时,厚度低于6 mm的材料存在严重的分层磨损[16] [17]。现在高交联超高分子量聚乙烯(UHMWPE)被引入关节成形术中,以减少聚乙烯磨损。新型垫片的最新据报道,目前建议最小垫片厚度为4 mm [18]

股骨假体与胫骨假体对位及匹配情况也会影响垫片磨损的风险。大多数UKA设计都有不协调的轴承表面,导致垫片内部的高接触应力。有研究表明,当股骨和胫骨假体的对齐不匹配大于5˚时,无论整个肢体的对齐如何,都会使假体的接触面积减少多达70%,进而极大增加垫片的接触应力,导致垫片磨损。此外,整个肢体内翻矫正不足与聚乙烯磨损有关[19]

前交叉韧带缺陷和随后的聚乙烯过度剪切力被认为会导致mUKA后聚乙烯磨损增加。保留的交叉韧带的状态导致股骨假体在聚乙烯上的滑动和滚动[20]。这可能会加速聚乙烯磨损[21]。有限元分析表明,聚乙烯交联可以减少68%的UKA聚乙烯磨损,从而可以减少UKA后ACL缺陷相关的聚乙烯磨损[22]

因此为避免垫片磨损,我们要选择合适的垫片,采用高交联超高分子量聚乙烯材料,其厚度不应低于4 mm,术中股骨假体与胫骨假体对位准确,避免造成术后过度的内翻,确保关节表面一致性,保护前交叉韧带。若术后出现单纯垫片磨损时,可通过更换垫片处理,但大多数情况下常改为TKA。

5. 假体周围骨折

导致UKA失败的一个原因是假体周围骨折(PPF),在国家联合登记第20届年度报告中约占UKA失败的4% [23]。假体周围骨折的相关危险因素包括患者情况和手术技巧。

一些患者特异性因素已被确定为假体周围骨折的危险因素:年龄、术前骨密度和骨矿物质含量、性别、胫骨大小和形态和膝关节内收力矩。有研究指出,80.6%的假体周围骨折发生在女性[24]。年龄的增加和女性性别都被广泛证明与骨质疏松症有关,骨质疏松症反过来又易导致骨折[25]-[27],骨质疏松症不仅使患者易患PPF,而且由于PPF带来的后续手术挑战也更困难。胫骨的大小与形态也与假体周围骨折有关。在一份病例报告中,Xian等人认为较小的胫骨外形易发生PPF,因为胫骨的较小,假体在植入过程中对医源性应力的抵抗能力较弱,在术后负重期间对垂直应力的抵抗能力较弱[28]。Yoshikawa等人还提出,胫骨植入物与干骺端皮质之间的距离较短可能会产生高应力区,容易导致内侧髁非常突出的胫骨骨折,同时也表明PPF的风险显著增加[29]

手术技术对于减少假体周围骨折的风险至关重要。假体周围骨折的技术特异性危险因素包括胫骨水平–矢状切面交叉处产生应力上升,切口设计、异常对齐,在胫骨构件下产生不均匀的应力分布,或增加膝关节内收力矩。有限元分析(FEA)研究表明,骨应力在UKA后在水平–矢状切面交叉处和胫骨内侧皮质处达到峰值[30],增加这些区域中的任何一个区域的区域应力,或减少这些应力区域之间的距离,有效地形成“高应力带”。通过水平–矢状切面交叉点至内侧皮质干骺端–干骺端交界处增加剪切骨折的风险[31]-[32]。此外切口设计也影响假体周围骨折的风险。Chang等人证明,错误延长的矢状切口可使切口相交应变增加高达50% [33]。Clarius等人使用Sawbones进行的一项实验研究发现,延长10˚矢状面切口可使骨折负荷降低30% [34]。术后胫骨内侧平台骨折的风险提示,当肢体整体内翻对齐度大于6或任何程度的肢体外翻对齐时,由于内侧腔室负荷增加[15]而增加。任何这些组件错位都与PPF发生率增加有关,并且PPF患者的植入体胫骨–皮质距离明显短于无PPF的患者。最佳的UKA后胫骨–股骨对齐仍有待最终证明,但非正式的共识是,建议进行一定程度的内翻对齐,以防止骨关节炎在外侧腔室的进展[35] [36]。然而,由于膝关节内收力矩增加,未矫正的内翻已被证明会导致内侧载荷力增加,并与翻修风险增加有关[35] [36]

6. 对侧间室关节炎发展

对侧间室退行性关节炎发展是UKA失败的主要原因之一,导致20%的早期失败(<5年),38%的中期失败(5~10年)和40%的mUKA (>10年)后晚期失败[4]。对侧间室关节炎的相关危险因素包括患者因素和手术因素。

患者方面,UKA的传统适应症包括传统适应症包括年龄小于60岁,体重小于180磅,禁忌症包括对侧室性关节炎和交叉韧带缺乏症。随着手术技术和假体设计的发展,适应症变得广泛。有研究表明,体重指数(BMI)超过30的UKA患者预后较差或翻修手术的风险没有增加[37]。此外,虽然60岁以下的患者有更高的翻修可能性,可能是由于更高的期望、更高的活动水平和更长的预期寿命,但与60岁以上的患者相比,他们的功能结局评分要好得多[37]。外侧骨室关节炎,通常由外侧骨赘的存在所决定,并没有被证明会影响UKA [16]的预后和生存。因此,无症状的轻度至中度髌骨关节炎或外侧腔室关节炎不应作为[16] [17] UKA的禁忌症。虽然早期的数据表明,前交叉韧带(ACL)缺陷的患者在UKA后失败的风险很高[38],但Du等人在他们的系统综述和荟萃分析中同样发现,没有前后位不稳定的ACL缺陷不是UKA的禁忌症[39]。虽然ACL不稳定的患者仍然可以进行UKA,但如果同时进行ACL重建,则会有更好的结果和更高的种植体存活率[20] [40]。因此,术前和术中评估临床相关的ACL完整性仍然是避免UKA术后并发症的重要因素。

手术方面,细致的软组织处理,注意避免软骨、十字韧带、对侧半月板和副韧带损伤,对于对侧室关节炎进展的风险至关重要。手术时过度校正机械轴也可导致外侧室的退行性改变。有研究表明,如果校正过度超过5˚,对侧正常间室负荷会相应增加50%~100%,其失败率是其他病例的6倍[41]。此外,垫片磨损产生的大量微型颗粒回刺激了膝关节周围滑膜的增生,从而导致对侧间室关节炎进展。

总之,为避免对侧间室关节炎进展,我们要做好术前评估,了解患者期望,术中避免软骨、韧带和半月板损伤,不要过度校正。术后患者减少重体力劳动,也能有效减缓关节炎的进展。对于UKA术后出现对侧间室关节炎的患者,TKA翻修术是有效治疗手段。

7. 总结

UKA术后并发症有假体松动、垫片磨损、假体周围骨折、对侧室间关节炎进展。这些并发症的病因及危险因素多是确定的。因此,为避免这些并发症,我们术前要把握好UKA的适应症和禁忌症,选择合适的病人,做好充分的术前评估,术中要细致操作,避免过度截骨及周围韧带、血管神经损伤,术后避免患者过度体力劳动。此外,假体设计、部件制造和术中导航的不断进步将使我们能够改善患者的治疗并避免UKA后的并发症。若发生了术后并发症,可以根据并发症的类型和原因选择不同的治疗方案,其中TKA是最有效的治疗方法。

NOTES

*通讯作者。

参考文献

[1] Curry, Z.A., Beling, A. and Borg-Stein, J. (2022) Knee Osteoarthritis in Midlife Women: Unique Considerations and Comprehensive Management. Menopause, 29, 748-755.
https://doi.org/10.1097/gme.0000000000001966
[2] 冯健, 班吉鹤, 高均宏, 等. 单髁置换治疗对膝关节单间室骨关节炎的临床疗效[J]. 浙江创伤外科, 2021, 26(3): 535-536.
https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CJFQ&dbname=CJFDLAST2021&filename=ZJCW202103066
[3] 文材, 尹立. 人工膝关节置换术的发展概况与进展[J]. 中国医药指南, 2018, 16(31): 31-34.
[4] Van der List, J.P., Zuiderbaan, H.A. and Pearle, A.D. (2016) Why Do Lateral Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasties Fail Today? American Journal of Orthopedics (Belle Mead, N.J.), 45, 432-462.
[5] Hutt, J.R.B., Farhadnia, P., Massé, V., Lavigne, M. and Vendittoli, P. (2015) A Randomised Trial of All-Polyethylene and Metal-Backed Tibial Components in Unicompartmental Arthroplasty of the Knee. The Bone & Joint Journal, 97, 786-792.
https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.97b6.35433
[6] Mohammad, H.R., Bullock, G.S., Kennedy, J.A., Mellon, S.J., Murray, D. and Judge, A. (2020) Cementless Unicompartmental Knee Replacement Achieves Better Ten‐Year Clinical Outcomes than Cemented: A Systematic Review. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 29, 3229-3245.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-06091-5
[7] Gupta, V., Kejriwal, R. and Frampton, C. (2020) Revision Following Cemented and Uncemented Oxford-III Primary Medial Unicompartmental Knee Replacements: A 19-Year Analysis from the New Zealand Joint Registry. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery American Volume, 102, 1777-1783.
https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.19.01443
[8] Mohammad, H.R., Judge, A. and Murray, D.W. (2023) The Effect of Body Mass Index on the Relative Revision Rates of Cemented and Cementless Unicompartmental Knee Replacements: An Analysis of over 10,000 Knee Replacements from National Databases. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 105, 527-536.
https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.22.01042
[9] Reiner, T., Schwarze, M., Panzram, B., Klotz, M.C., Bitsch, R.G. and Jaeger, S. (2018) The Influence of the Twin Peg Design on Femoral Interface Temperature and Maximum Load to Failure in Cemented Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty (Bristol, Avon). Clinical Biomechanics, 55, 23-27.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2018.04.003
[10] 李慧彬, 王婷婷, 张延辉, 等. 膝关节单髁置换术后并发症及分析[J]. 牡丹江医学院学报, 2022, 43(2): 119-121.
https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?v=i12nDYUbXpIvdHS6-fM-8xsb1Bpmvtb-npy9PmfU58pd7lubM3-mWfenCK2oRqxiO4ti3mrn78KEmRcEInbZnx00-gF6K5OXkfNu-VSAL-0n78Ht5RV294NQZvkrZECl5eHOQawkZ48leQE9BLPoQ1kL-BxzRZ1MKmvtwjgdnezURsRVXHqibi-HCZn4dsqL&uniplatform=NZKPT&language=CHS
[11] Hamilton, W.G., Collier, M.B., Tarabee, E., McAuley, J.P., Engh, C.A. and Engh, G.A. (2006) Incidence and Reasons for Reoperation after Minimally Invasive Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. The Journal of Arthroplasty, 21, 98-107.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2006.05.010
[12] Wood, M.J., Al-Jabri, T., Maniar, A.R., Stelzhammer, T., Lanting, B. and Giannoudis, P.V. (2024) Periprosthetic Tibial Fracture as a Complication of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Current Insights. Injury, 55, Article ID: 111654.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2024.111654
[13] Dalury, D.F. and Dennis, D.A. (2005) Mini-Incision Total Knee Arthroplasty Can Increase Risk of Component Malalignment. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 440, 77-81.
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000185757.17401.7b
[14] Barbadoro, P., Ensini, A., Leardini, A., d’Amato, M., Feliciangeli, A., Timoncini, A., et al. (2014) Tibial Component Alignment and Risk of Loosening in Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Radiographic and Radiostereometric Study. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 22, 3157-3162.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3147-6
[15] Innocenti, B., Pianigiani, S., Ramundo, G. and Thienpont, E. (2016) Biomechanical Effects of Different Varus and Valgus Alignments in Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. The Journal of Arthroplasty, 31, 2685-2691.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.07.006
[16] Hamilton, T.W., Choudhary, R., Jenkins, C., Mellon, S.J., Dodd, C.A.F., Murray, D.W., et al. (2016) Lateral Osteophytes Do Not Represent a Contraindication to Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A 15-Year Follow-Up. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 25, 652-659.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4313-9
[17] Plante-Bordeneuve, P. and Freeman, M. (1993) Tibial High-Density Polyethylene Wear in Conforming Tibiofemoral Prostheses. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume, 75, 630-636.
https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.75b4.8331121
[18] Mohammad, H.R., et al. (2019) Long-Term in Vivo Wear of Different Bearing Types Used for the Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacement. Bone & Joint Research, 8, 535-543.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31832173/
[19] Mittal, A., et al. (2020) Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty, an Enigma, and the Ten Enigmas of Medial UKA. Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 21, 15.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32876817/
[20] Mancuso, F., Dodd, C.A., Murray, D.W. and Pandit, H. (2016) Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty in the ACL-Deficient Knee. Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 17, 267-275.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10195-016-0402-2
[21] Makaram, N.S., Yapp, L.Z., Bowley, A.L.W., Garner, A. and Scott, C.E.H. (2024) Polyethylene Wear in Metal-Backed Tibial Components in Unicompartmental Knee Prostheses. Journal of ISAKOS, 9, Article ID: 100324.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jisako.2024.100324
[22] Netter, J., Hermida, J.C., D’Alessio, J., Kester, M. and D’Lima, D.D. (2015) Effect of Polyethylene Crosslinking and Bearing Design on Wear of Unicompartmental Arthroplasty. The Journal of Arthroplasty, 30, 1430-1433.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.03.026
[23] 2023国家联合登记处20年第2023份年度报告[EB/OL].
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38422195/, 2025-06-27.
[24] Berend, K.R., Lombardi, A.V. and Adams, J.B. (2007) Obesity, Young Age, Patellofemoral Disease, and Anterior Knee Pain: Identifying the Unicondylar Arthroplasty Patient in the United States. Orthopedics, 30, 19-23.
[25] Porter, J.L. and Varacallo, M. (2023) Osteoporosis.
[26] Aspray, T.J. and Hill, T.R. (2019) Osteoporosis and the Ageing Skeleton. In: Harris, J.R. and Korolchuk, V.I., Eds., Biochemistry and Cell Biology of Ageing: Part II Clinical Science, Springer, 453-476.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3681-2_16
[27] Dennison, E., Mohamed, M.A. and Cooper, C. (2006) Epidemiology of Osteoporosis. Rheumatic Disease Clinics of North America, 32, 617-629.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rdc.2006.08.003
[28] Xian, L.Z. and Chye, A.T.H. (2021) An Early Periprosthetic Fracture of a Cementless Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Risk Factors and Mitigation Strategies. Journal of Orthopaedic Case Reports, 11, 65-69.
https://doi.org/10.13107/jocr.2021.v11.i04.2156
[29] Yoshikawa, R., Hiranaka, T., Okamoto, K., Fujishiro, T., Hida, Y., Kamenaga, T., et al. (2020) The Medial Eminence Line for Predicting Tibial Fracture Risk after Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery, 12, 166-170.
https://doi.org/10.4055/cios19011
[30] Chui, E.C., Lau, L.C., Kwok, C.K., Ng, J.P., Hung, Y., Yung, P.S., et al. (2021) Tibial Cutting Guide (Resector) Holding Pins Position and Subsequent Risks of Periprosthetic Fracture in Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Finite Element Analysis Study. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 16, Article No. 205.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-021-02308-6
[31] Pegg, E.C., Walter, J., D’Lima, D.D., Fregly, B.J., Gill, H.S. and Murray, D.W. (2020) Minimising Tibial Fracture after Unicompartmental Knee Replacement: A Probabilistic Finite Element Study. Clinical Biomechanics, 73, 46-54.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2019.12.014
[32] Dai, X., Fang, J., Jiang, L., Xiong, Y., Zhang, M. and Zhu, S. (2018) How Does the Inclination of the Tibial Component Matter? A Three-Dimensional Finite Element Analysis of Medial Mobile-Bearing Unicompartmental Arthroplasty. The Knee, 25, 434-444.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2018.02.004
[33] Chang, T.-W., et al. (2011) Biomechanical Evaluation of Proximal Tibial Behavior Following Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty: Modified Resected Surface with Corresponding Surgical Technique. Medical Engineering & Physics, 33, 1175-1182.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21741289/
[34] Seeger, J.B., Haas, D., Jäger, S., Röhner, E., Tohtz, S. and Clarius, M. (2011) Extended Sagittal Saw Cut Significantly Reduces Fracture Load in Cementless Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Compared to Cemented Tibia Plateaus: An Experimental Cadaver Study. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 20, 1087-1091.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-011-1698-3
[35] Petterson, S.C., Blood, T.D. and Plancher, K.D. (2020) Role of Alignment in Successful Clinical Outcomes Following Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Current Concepts. Journal of ISAKOS, 5, 224-228.
https://doi.org/10.1136/jisakos-2019-000401
[36] Yuk-Wah, H., Jason, C.F., Carson, K.K., Ellis, L.W. and Carman, K.L. (2018) Delayed Tibial-Platform Periprosthetic Stress Fracture after Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Uncommon and Devastating Complication. Journal of Orthopaedics, Trauma and Rehabilitation, 25, 29-33.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jotr.2017.08.005
[37] van der List, J.P., Chawla, H., Zuiderbaan, H.A. and Pearle, A.D. (2016) The Role of Preoperative Patient Characteristics on Outcomes of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis Critique. The Journal of Arthroplasty, 31, 2617-2627.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.04.001
[38] Goodfellow, J.W., Kershaw, C.J., Benson, M.K. and O’Connor, J.J. (1988) The Oxford Knee for Unicompartmental Osteoarthritis. The First 103 Cases. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume, 70, 692-701.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3192563/
[39] Du, G., Qiu, H., Zhu, J., Wang, H., Xiao, Q., Zhang, Z., et al. (2023) No Difference Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty for Medial Knee Osteoarthritis with or without Anterior Cruciate Ligament Deficiency: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. The Journal of Arthroplasty, 38, 586-593.e1.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2022.10.018
[40] Adravanti, P., Budhiparama, N.C., Berend, K.R. and Thienpont, E. (2017) ACL-Deficient Knee and Unicompartmental OA: State of the Art. Journal of ISAKOS, 2, 162-170.
https://doi.org/10.1136/jisakos-2016-000066
[41] 张占丰, 王丹, 闵继康, 等. 膝关节单髁置换术65例的中期随访效果分析[J]. 中华骨与关节外科杂志, 2016, 9(6): 472-475.
https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CJFQ&dbname=CJFDLAST2017&filename=ZGJW201606006