Shoulder - Clinical Data
Publications
UniCAP™ Meniscal Sparing Unicondylar Knee System.
Clinical Monograph, Arthrosurface 2012
Free Full Text: Arthro Weblink
UniCAP™ Meniscal Sparing Unicondylar Knee System.
Clinical Monograph, Arthrosurface 2009
Free Full Text: Arthro Weblink
Arthroscopically assisted, Meniscal Sparing Tibiofemoral Knee Resurfacing. Review of Treatment Concept, Surgical Technique, and Early Outcomes.
Miniaci A, Cohen N, Rodriguez F
Arthrosurface 2009
Free Full Text: Arthro Weblink
Abstract
Tibiofemoral joint arthrosis has debilitating effects, in particular for active middle‐aged patients who have failed the conservative and biological procedures commonly used to treat monocompartmental arthrosis. There are many treatment options available to manage localized articular defects in the knee. Historically, the transition from conservative and biological interventions to joint replacement has not been well defined in the literature.
In order to provide continuing joint preservation for knee arthrosis, an innovative, FDA approved, meniscal sparing tibiofemoral resurfacing technology was introduced to the market in March 2008. The benefits of Arthroscopically assisted Knee Resurfacing (AKR) are based on the use of a 3-D, intraoperative surface mapping technology and the implantation of patient specific, congruent inlay components. The low‐profile articular implants accurately reconstruct a load sharing surface without altering the volume or natural biomechanics of the knee. Precision reamed implant beds result in a minimum amount of bone and cartilage removal so that the impact on future conversion to standard joint arthroplasty is not compromised. Conservation of healthy meniscal, articular, and ligamentous tissues preserves a more natural feel of the knee. The arthroscopic tibial approach and small femoral arthrotomy, combined with congruent surface replacement enable a faster recovery.
Patient selection is key. The target patient has mono‐compartmental arthrosis, ligamentous stability, adequate mechanical alignment, satisfactory meniscal function, and a normal body mass index. Particular consideration needs to be given to the compounding effect of combined risk factors when determining patient indications.
A multicenter review of 51 implantations in 48 patients (3 bilateral) demonstrated encouraging
results in patient and surgeon satisfaction, pain relief and postoperative recovery at an average
follow‐up of 3 months following the procedure (range 1‐10). Patients returned to work at an average time of 6 weeks (non‐retirees). Future studies are necessary to determine the medium and long‐term benefits of the procedure and provide detailed guidance in regards to positive and negative outcome predictors.
