• 01865 307 528
  • 07889 443721
  • christine@oxfordorthopaedics.net
  • Manor Hospital, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7RP
  • Home
  • Reference Book
      • Unicompartmental Arthroplasty with the Oxford Knee
      • Preface
      • Chapter 1: Introduction and Historical Overview
      • Chapter 2: Design and Biomechanics of the Oxford Knee
      • Chapter 3: Mobility and Stability of the Intact and Replaced Knee
      • Chapter 4; Indications: Anteromedial Osteoarthritis
      • Chapter 5: Contraindications in Anteromedial Osteoarthritis
      • Chapter 6: Principles of the Oxford Operation
      • Chapter 7: Surgical technique: Cemented or cementless implantation with Microplasty instrumentation
      • Chapter 8: Medial Indications other than AMOA
      • Chapter 9: Postoperative Management and Radiography
      • Chapter 10: Clinical Results
      • Chapter 11: Management of Complications
      • Chapter 12: The Lateral Side
      • Appendix
  • Publications
  • Patient’s Area
  • Meet the Team
    • David_MurrayDavid Murray
    • Chris-Dodd2Christopher Dodd
    • John-O’ConnorJohn O’Connor
    • John GoodfellowJohn Goodfellow
    • Oxford-Knee-Fellows23Knee Fellows & Engineers
  • Contact
  • Home
  • Reference Book
    • Unicompartmental Arthroplasty with the Oxford Knee
    • Preface
    • Chapter 1: Introduction and Historical Overview
    • Chapter 2: Design and Biomechanics of the Oxford Knee
    • Chapter 3: Mobility and Stability of the Intact and Replaced Knee
    • Chapter 4; Indications: Anteromedial Osteoarthritis
    • Chapter 5: Contraindications in Anteromedial Osteoarthritis
    • Chapter 6: Principles of the Oxford Operation
    • Chapter 7: Surgical technique: Cemented or cementless implantation with Microplasty instrumentation
    • Chapter 8: Medial Indications other than AMOA
    • Chapter 9: Postoperative Management and Radiography
    • Chapter 10: Clinical Results
    • Chapter 11: Management of Complications
    • Chapter 12: The Lateral Side
    • Appendix
  • Publications
  • Patient’s Area
  • Meet the Team
    • David Murray
    • Christopher Dodd
    • John O’Connor
    • John Goodfellow
    • Knee Fellows & Engineers
  • Contact
Expand All Collapse All
  • 2: Design and Biomechanics of the Oxford Knee
    • The natural knee
    • The Oxford ‘Meniscal’ Knee
    • Polyethylene wear in the Oxford Knee
      • Polyethylene wear in the Oxford Knee: Continued
    • Cementless Oxford arthroplasty
    • Potential problems with the tibia
    • References

Cementless Oxford arthroplasty

72 views 0

With good long term results achieved with the cemented Oxford arthroplasty, there seems little justification to develop a cementless device, particularly as cementless TKA have not performed as well as cemented TKA (Ranawat et al., 2012). There are however potential advantages. For example, many failures are caused by cementing errors, which often occur with inexperienced surgeons using the Minimally Invasive Surgical (MIS) approach. Furthermore, many of the failures in the Registers are reported as being from loosening. Some of these are likely to be true loosening but others may be the result of misinterpretation of the radiolucent lines that commonly are seen in association with a cemented tibial component. Both of these issues could potentially be addressed with cementless components.

The mechanical environment at the bone/implant interface is very different in TKA to UKA, with the forces in a TKA not being ideal for cementless fixation whereas those in UKA, particularly mobile bearing UKA, are. Despite cementless TKA not performing well (Ranawat et al., 2012), it is therefore well worth considering cementless mobile bearing UKA. Optimally there will be only compressive forces at the interface. With the mobile bearing OUKA, excluding the effects of friction, the forces are predominantly compressive.

With UKA, whether the load across the knee is central (Fig. 2.21(a)) or eccentric (Fig. 2.21(c)) there is always compressive load under the tibial component. However, following TKA, although central loading (Fig. 2.21(b)) causes compression, eccentric loading (Fig. 2.21(d)) may cause tilting and loosening of the tibia.

Anecdotal evidence that suggests that cementless components will work comes from an Italian surgeon who implanted Phase 2 Oxford components without cement. Despite having no fixation, these components functioned well. We were able to review some radiographs taken five years postoperatively. They were satisfactory, albeit with radiolucencies. This confirms that the loading on the components is predominantly compressive and that even without any formal fixation, the components function well. Therefore, with cementless fixation, one would expect a reliable result.

Figure 2.21 The mechanical environment at the bone/implant interface in UKA with (top left) central and (bottom left) eccentric loading, and TKA with (top right) central and (bottom right) eccentric loading.

Next>>

Was this helpful?

Yes  No
Related Articles
  • References
  • Potential problems with the tibia
  • Polyethylene wear in the Oxford Knee: Continued
  • Polyethylene wear in the Oxford Knee
  • The Oxford ‘Meniscal’ Knee
  • The natural knee
The Oxford Knee Replacement is the most widely used partial knee replacement worldwide. Replacing one side of the knee, unicompartmental knee replacement, tends to result in shorter hospital stays, fewer short-term complications, faster recovery and better knee function than total knee replacements.

© All rights reserved Oxford Knee Info 2025

.

Privacy Policy

Popular Search:ACL damage, physical signs