Oxford Partial Knee

12

Femoral Component• Conforming,sphericaldesignminimizes

contactstressthroughoutentirerange ofmotion

• Curvedinnergeometryforminimal boneremoval

Mobile Meniscal Bearing• Mobilebearingdesignedtoremainfully

congruentwithfemoralcomponentthroughoutentirerangeofmotion1

• IncreasedwearresistancewithArComDirectCompressionMoldedpolyethylene2,3

Tibial Component

Anatomicalshapefor optimalbonecoverage

Oxford Partial KneeADefinitiveImplant

The Oxford Partial Knee is the most widely

used and clinically proven partial knee system in

the world, offering industry leading approaches

to personalized patient care for increased OR

efficiencies and reproducible results. Replacing

just the affected medial compartment allows a

morenatural fit, improvedrangeofmotionand is

amoreboneconservingoperationthantotalknee

arthroplasty(TKA).

The Oxford Partial Knee System is available in

the following variety of combinations; cemented,

cementless,medial, lateral,andTiNbNcomponents

forthetreatmentofyourpatients.

CementlessFixation

TheOxfordPartialKneeformedialcompartment

replacementisnowavailablewithPorousPlasma

Spray (PPS) & Hydroxyapatite (HA) coating for

cementlessfixation.

• Offerstwin-pegfemoraldesigntoallowfor additionalrotationalstability

• Plasmasprayedporoustitaniumcoating providesmechanicalinterlockwiththe substrate4

• Providesadditionalearlyfixationbyusing hydroxyapatite(HA)coating5

• Reducestheincidenceofradiolucencies seenunderthetibialcomponentson screenedradiographs5

• Eliminatespossibleknownfailure mechanismscausedbypoorcementing technique

• Reducesoperatingtimeasiteliminates cementpreparationandcuringtime

• Availablein5femoralcomponentsizesfor optimisedpatientfit

Oxford Partial KneePublishedClinicalResults BenefitsofPartialKneesInclude:

Overview of Oxford Unicompartmental Knee ArthroplastyGaurav Khanna, MD; Bruce A. Levy, MD6

Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacement: Literature Review. Orthopedics Supplement. 30(5): 12. 2007.

Authors Year n Age (years) Disease Knee ScoreFollow-up

(y)

% Survivorship

(y)Mode of Failure

Goodfellowet al 6 1988103 (27lateral)

70(range:54–86)

MedialorlateralOA

NoneGiven 3(2–5) 91.09revisions(5componentloosening,3bearingdislocation,1diseaseprogression)

Carret al 7 1993 12169(range:57–81)

MedialOA 40.1(OKS) 3.8 99.0 1revision(componentloosening)

Murrayet al 8 1998 14371(range:35–91)

AnteromedialOA NoneGiven 7.6(6–14) 98.0(10)5revisions(2componentloosening,2lateralOA,1unexplainedpain)

Vorlatet al 9 2000 41(3lateral)62(range46–84)

MedialorlateralOA

87.0(HSS) 5(2–8) 93.03revisions(2lateralOA,1componentmalalignment)

Svardet al 10 2001 12470(range:51–86)

AnteromedialOA NoneGiven12.5 (10.1–15.6)

95.0(10)6revisions(3bearingdislocation,2componentloosening,1infection)

Emersonet al 11 2002 5063(range:38–85)

MedialOA 92(AKS) 6.8(2–13) 93.0(10)

7revisions(4lateralOA,1bearingimpingement,1inflammatoryarthritis,1componentloosening)

Keyset al 12 2004 4068(range:0–80)

MedialOA NoneGiven 7.5(6–10) 100(10) None

Rajasekharet al13 2004 13571(range:53–88)

MedialOA 92.2(AKS) 5.8(2–12) 94.0(10)

5revisions(2componentloosening,1componentloosening/bearingdislocation, 1bearingdislocation, 1unexplainedpain)

Langdownet al 14 2005 29 71(46–85) AVN 38.0(OKS) 5.2(1–13) 100(10) None

Priceet al 15

2005 52pts<60:56(range:35–60)

MedialOA 94.0(HSS) 10 91.0(10)4revisions(2lateralOA, 1componentloosening, 1bearingfracture)

512pts>60:71(range:60–95)

MedialOA 86.0(HSS) 10 96.0(10)

20revisions(8lateralOA, 5componentloosening,3deepinfection,3bearingdislocation, 1unexplainedpain)

Verdonket al 16 2005 97(10lateral)61(range:46–84)

MedialorlateralOA

NoneGiven 6.8(2–14) 86.0

14revisions(5componentloosening,3bearingdislocation,3lateralOA,2unexplainedpain,1supracondylarfemurfracture)

Priceet al 17 2005 43970(range:49–95)

MedialOA 86.0(HSS) 15 93.1(15)

23revisions(7lateralOA, 5componentloosening, 5bearingdislocation,2infection, 2unexplainedpain, 1componentloosening/bearingdislocation,1bearingfracture)

Vorlatet al 18 2006 14966(range:46–89)

MedialOA NoneGiven 5.5(1–10) 84.0(10)

24revisions(9lateralOA, 6componentloosening, 4bearingdislocation,2bearingfracture,1tibialsubsidence, 1instability,1unknown)

Kortet al 19 2006 4656(range:43–60)

MedialOA 90.5(AKS) (2–6) 96.02revisions(1tibialloosening/femoralmalalignment,1femoralmalalignment)

Luscombeet al 20 2006 7863(range:41–79)

MedialOA 38.3(OKS) 2 95.04revisions(1unexplainedpain,1deepinfection,1componentloosening,1bearingdislocation)

Panditet al 21 2006 68866(range:33–89)

AnteromedialOA(667)AVN(21)

39.0(OKS) 7 97.39revisions(4deepinfection, 3bearingdislocation, 2unexplainedpain)

PriceandSvard22 2010 68269.7(range:48–94)

AnteromedialOA,SecondaryOA,Osteonecrosis

NoneGiven 5.9(0.5–22)98(10)91(20)

29revisions(10lateralarthrosis,9componentloosening, 5infection,2bearingdislocations,3unexplainedpain)

Abbreviations:AKS=AmericanKneeScore,AVN=AvascularNecrosis,HSS=HospitalforSpecialSurgery,OA=Osteoarthritis,andOKS=OxfordKneeScore.

92.4% at minimum 10 years23-29

94% at minimum 15 years27-29

91% at minimum 20 years29

Clinical Survivorship

The most widely used and clinically proven partial knee system in the world. • AmorenaturalfitthanTKA,withonlythe

affectedmedialcompartment beingreplaced1

• Improvedrangeofmotioncomparedto TKA23-25

• PreservesmorehealthybonethanTKA25

• Betterfunctionality27andmorenatural motionthanTKA25

• Fasterrecoveryandshorterhospitalstay thanTKA23

• SubstantialcostsavingsoverTKA (accordingtoanindependentstudy)26

• Fewerandlessseverecomplications includingdecreasedriskofinfectionand morbiditycomparedwithTKA27-28

Oxford Partial Knee

The Oxford Partial Knee System continues to

advance partial knee arthroplasty with Microplasty

Instrumentation.Thisinstrumentationplatformincludes

innovative tools to helpwith ease of use, precision,

efficiencyandreproducibility

MicroplastyPartialKneeInstrumentation Uniting Precision, Efficiency and Reproducibility

• Sphericalmillandspigotsprovideasimplifiedapproachtobalancingtheflexionandextensiongaps

• Minimalincisiontoavoidquadricepsdisruption

• Sizespecificfemoralinstrumentationforprecise1mmincrementalboneremoval

• Supportspatientdemandwithaccurate reproducibleresults

The Oxford Partial Knee coupled with

MicroplastyInstrumentationprovidessurgeons

with the tools to allow for ease of use,

precision, efficiency and reproducibility for

eachpatient:

Thisdocumentandallcontent,artwork,photographs,names,logosandmarkscontainedwithinareprotectedbycopyright, trademarks andother intellectual property rights ownedbyor licensed toBiomet, Inc. or its affiliates.ThisdocumenthasbeenpreparedbyBiomet formarketingandeducationalpurposes intended forBiometsalespersonnelandsurgeonsonlyandmaynotbeused,copiedinwholeorinpartforanyotherpurposes.

BiometInc.,noritsaffiliatespracticemedicineanddonotrecommendanyparticularorthopedicimplantorsurgicaltechniqueandarenotresponsibleforuseonaspecificpatient.Thesurgeonwhoperformsanyimplantprocedureis responsible fordeterminingandutilizing theappropriate techniques for implantingprosthesis ineach individualpatient.TheBiometproductsdepictedinthisdocumentaredesigned,andintended,foruseinconjunctionwithotherBiometproductsonly,unlessexplicitlyindicatedotherwiseinthisdocument.Useofothermanufacturers’productsmayadverselyaffecttheinteroperabilityoftheBiometproducts.

ThisdocumentwaspublishedinSeptember2012.Theinformationcontainedinthisdocumentmaynolongerbeuptodate.Therefore,beforerelyinginanywayonthecontentsofthisdocument,alwaysverifywithyourlocalBiometrepresentativewhetherthisisthelatestversion.Ifyourequireanupdatedversionofthisdocumentforappropriatepurposes,yourlocalBiometrepresentativewillprovideanupdatedversion,ifapplicable.

References 1.Goodfellow,J.andO’Connor,J.TheMechanicsof theKneeand

ProsthesisDesign. Journal ofBone and JointSurgery (Br). 60(3):358–69,1978.

2.Bankston,A.etal.ComparisonofPolyethyleneWearinMachinedVersus Molded Polyethylene. Clinical Orthopaedics and RelatedResearch.317:37–43,1995.

3.Clarke,I.etal.HipSimulatorWearTestingArCom®vs.ExtrudedBarPolyethylene.Presentation.7thAnnualConferenceonTechniques&ScienceforSuccessfulJointArthroplasty.1995.

4.FocusonFixation:PorousPlasmaSpray&OsteoCoatHA.BiometbrochureFormNo.Y-BMT-777.

5.Pandit, H et al. Cemented and Cementless Fixation ofUnicompartmental Knee Replacement: A Randomised ControlledTrial.

6.Goodfellow, J. et al. The Oxford Knee for UnicompartmentalOsteoarthritis.The First 103 Cases. Journal of Bone and JointSurgery.70:692–701.1998.

7.Carr, A. et al. Medial Unicompartmental Arthroplasty: A SurvivalStudy of the Oxford Meniscal Knee. Clinical Orthopedics andRelatedResearch.295:205–213.1993.

8.Murray,D.etal.TheOxfordMedialUnicompartmentalArthroplasty.ATenYearSurvivalStudy.JournalofBoneandJointSurgery.80-B(6):983–89,1998.

9.Vorlat,P. et al. TheOxfordUnicompartmentalKneeProsthesis:A5-YearFollow-up.KneeSurgerySportsTraumatologyArthroscopy.8:154–158.2000.

10.Svard, U. and Price, A. Oxford Medial Unicompartmental KneeArthroplasty.ASurvivalAnalysisofanIndependentSeries.JournalofBoneandJointSurgeryBr.83:191–194.2001.

11.Emerson, R. et al. Comparison of aMobilewith a Fixed-BearingUnicompartmentalKneeImplant.ClinicalOrthopedicsandRelatedResearch.404:62–70.2002.

12.Keys,G.etal.AnalysisofFirstFortyOxfordMedialUnicompartmentalKnee Replacements from a Small District Hospital in UK. Knee.11:375–377.2004.

13.Rajasekhar,C.etal.UnicompartmentalKneeArthroplasty.2-to12-yearResults inaCommunityHospital. JournalofBoneandJointSurgeryBr.86:983–985.2004.

14.Langdown,A.etal.OxfordMedialUnicompartmentalArthroplastyforFocalSpontaneousOsteonecrosisoftheKnee.ActaOrthopaedica.76:688–692.2005.

15.Price,A.etal.OxfordMedialUnicompartmentalKneeArthroplastyin PatientsYounger and Older Than 60 Years of Age. Journal ofBoneandJointSurgeryBr.87:1488–1492.2005.

P.O.Box587,Warsaw,IN46581-0587•800.348.9500x1501 ©2011BiometOrthopedics•biomet.com

FormNo.BOI0233.2•REV021511

16.Verdonk,R.etal.TheOxfordUnicompartmentalKneeProsthesis:A 2-14 Year Follow-up. Knee Surgery Sports TraumatologyArthroscopy.13:163–166.2005.

17.Price, A. et al. Long-term Clinical Results of the Medial OxfordUnicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. Clinical Orthopedics andRelatedResearch.435:171–180.2005.

18.Vorlat, P. et al. The Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Prosthesis:An Independent 10-year Survival Analysis. Knee Surgery SportsTraumatologyArthroscopy.14:40–45.2006.

19.Kort, N. et al. The Oxford Phase III Unicompartmental KneeReplacementinPatientsLessthan60YearsofAge.KneeSurgerySportsTraumatologyArthroscopy.2006.

20.Luscombe, K. et al. Minimally Invasive Oxford MedialUnicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. A Note of Caution!InternationalOrthopaedics.2006.

21.Pandit, H. et al. The Oxford Medial Unicompartmental KneeReplacementUsingaMinimally-invasiveApproach.JournalofBoneandJointSurgery.88B:54–60,2006.

22.Price, A. and Svard, U. A Second Decade Lifetable SurvivalAnalysisoftheOxfordUnicompartmentalKneeArthroplasty.ClinicalOrthopaedicsandRelatedResearch.PublishedOnline13August2010.

23.Lombardi, A. et al. Is Recovery Faster for Mobile-bearingUnicompartmental than Total Knee Arthroplasty? ClinicalOrthopedicsandRelatedResearch.467:1450-57.2009.

24.Amin A, et al. Unicompartmental or Total Knee Replacement? ADirectComparativeStudyofSurvivorshipandClinicalOutcomeatFiveYears.JBJSBr.2006;88-B;Suppl1,100.PublishedOnline.www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

25.Deshmukh, RV, Scott, RD. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty:longtermresults.ClinicalOrthopedicsandRelatedResearch.2001;392:272278.

26.Cobb, JP, et al.Unicondylar kneearthroplasty in theUKNationalHealth Service: An analysis of candidacy, outcome and cost ef-ficacy.ScienceDirect.TheKnee16.473–478.2009.

27.Brown,NM,etal.TotalKneeArthroplastyHasHigherPostoperativeMorbidityThanUnicompartmentalKneeArthroplasty:AMulticenterAnalysis.TheJournalofArthroplasty,2012.

28.Robertsson,O,etal.Useofunicompartmental insteadof tricom-partmental prostheses for unicompartmental arthrosis in the kneeis a cost effective alternative. Acta Orthop Scand. (1999); 70(2):170-175.

29.Lygre, SHL et al. Pain and Function in Patients After PrimaryUnicompartmental and Total Knee Arthroplasty. JBJS Am. 2010;92:2890-2897.

Thispublicationhasbeenissuedby:

EuropeanCentralMarketingWatertonIndustrialEstateBridgend,SouthWalesCF313XA,UnitedKingdomTel:+44(0)1656655221Fax:+44(0)1656645454

FLK

202

09/1

2