Oxford® Partial Knee

With over 40 years of clinical heritage, the Oxford® Partial Knee is the most widely used1 and clinically proven2,3 partial knee system in the world.

With the right indications, partial knee arthroplasty (PKA) is an alternative to both total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The Oxford Partial Knee includes options for both medial and lateral compartment replacement as well as cemented and cementless options.

The Oxford Partial Knee offers surgeons a partial knee replacement that is less invasive and has demonstrated lower morbidity and pain scores when compared to total knee replacement.1

Reported benefits of the Oxford knee include "conservation of normal structures, knee kinematics and proprioceptions."1

Higher patient satisfaction may be the result of the many benefits that PKA offers patients, such as:

  • A more natural fit than TKA, with only the affected medial compartment being replaced2
  • Improved range of motion3-5*
  • Preserving more healthy bone5*
  • Better functionality5 and more natural motion5 than TKA
  • Faster recovery and shorter hospital stay than TKA3
  • Fewer and less severe complications including lower morbidity compared with TKA6,7

Candidacy

In 1989 Kozinn and Scott published what were at the time the ideal indications for Partial Knee Replacement.8 According to their criteria, only 5% of patients were candidates for PKR. This may partly explain why there is low utilisation of PKA today, with it only being used for 8%9 of knee replacements worldwide.

One study showed that in fact 47.6% of all knee replacement patients are candidates for PKA. 10

Utilisation: closing the revision gap

The revision gap between PKA and TKA reported in national joint registries has been reduced with increased utilisation of PKRs:

  • Tregonning, et al in a study reviewing the New Zealand Joint Registry found that surgeons performing at least 12 PKRs per year are found to have a decreased revision rate11
  • Liddle, AD. et al found in the National Joint Registry for England and Wales that surgeons utilising PKA for at least 20% of their annual knee replacements experienced a dramatic decrease in their revision rate12

What's more, with research showing that up to 61% of patients13 could be candidates for PKA, the optimal usage of performing at least 12 partial knee replacements per year11 can easily be achieved.

Product Variants:

  • Oxford® Cemented PKR: clinically proven, demonstrating 91% Kaplan Meier Survivorship at min 20 years.14
  • Oxford® Cementless PKR: providing the benefits of reduced incidents of radiolucencies and reduced operating time, and in a multicenter study of 1,000 patients, the cementless Oxford Partial Knee has demonstrated a 97.2% survivorship at 6 years.15
  • Oxford® Domed Lateral PKR: his revolutionary concept challenges previous designs by reproducing the natural joint kinematics. In a healthy knee, the lateral meniscus subluxes posteriorly over the edge of the tibial plateau. The Oxford Domed Lateral Partial Knee reproduces this motion.16
  • Oxford Fixed Lateral: the only partial knee, aside from the Domed Lateral, specifically designed for the lateral compartment. Using over 300 CT scans to create a more anatomic tibial component.
  • Oxford® Titanium Niobium PKR: Components are coated by Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD) with a Titanium Niobium Nitride Coating. This implant provides an excellent alternative to Cobalt Chrome (CoCR), Titanium Nitride, Ceramic or Oxinium™ materials.

For more information on the Oxford Partial Knee visit: www.oxfordpartialknee.com

  1. Kim, K.T. et al. A Prospective Analysis of Oxford Phase 3 Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 30(5 Suppl): 15-18, 2007.
  2. Goodfellow, J.W. and O’Connor, J.J. The Mechanics of the Knee and Prosthesis Design. JBJS Br. 60-B(3): 358–69, 1978.
  3. Lombardi, A. et al. Is Recovery Faster for Mobile-bearing Unicompartmental than Total Knee Arthroplasty? Clinical Orthopedics and Related Research. 467:1450-57. 2009.
  4. Amin A, et al. Unicompartmental or Total Knee Replacement? A Direct Comparative Study of Survivorship and Clinical Outcome at Five Years. JBJS Br. 2006; 88-B; Suppl 1, 100. Published Online.
  5. Deshmukh, RV, Scott, RD. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: long term results. Clinical Orthopedics and Related Research. 2001; 392:272278.
  6. Brown, NM, et al. Total Knee Arthroplasty Has Higher Postoperative Morbidity Than Uni-compartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Multicenter Analysis. The Journal of Arthroplasty. (2012)
  7. Robertsson, O, et al. Use of unicompartmental instead of tricompartmental prostheses for unicompartmental arthrosis in the knee is a cost effective alternative. Acta Orthop Scand. (1999); 70(2): 170-175.
  8. Kozinn, S and Scott, R. Current Concepts Review Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. VOL. 71-A, NO. I. January 1989.
  9. 2017 Europe Large Joint Market_Top 5_DRG Pg 40 Table 21: Reconstructive Knee Implant Procedures, by Procedure Type, Europe, 2015-2025.
  10. Willis-Owen CA, et al. Unicondylar knee arthroplasty in the UK National Health Service: An analysis of candidacy, outcome and cost efficacy. Knee. 2009 Dec;16(6):473–8.
  11. Tregonning, R. et al. Early Failure Of The Oxford Phase 3 Cemented Medial Uni-Compartmental Knee Joint Arthroplasty: An Audit Of The Nz Joint Registry Over Six Years. 2015, 97-B (SUPP 2).
  12. Liddle, A. et al. Optimal usage of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty A STUDY OF 41 986 CASES FROM THE NATIONAL JOINT REGISTRY FOR ENGLAND AND WALES. Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1506–11.
  13. Emerson RH Jr, Higgins LL. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with the Oxford prosthesis in patients with medial compartment arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Jan;90(1):118-22.
  14. Price AJ, Svard U.: A second decade lifetable survival analysis of the Oxford unicompar-mental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Jan;469(1): 174-9.
  15. 15.  Hooper N, et al. The five-year radiological results of the uncemented Oxford medial compartment knee arthroplasty. Bone & Joint Journal. 2015;97(10):1358-1363.
  16. B.H. van Duren et al. A new domed tibial lateral component provides improved range of movement & retains normal kinematics for the Oxford UKR. Presentation. EFORT 2007.

*Refers to ‘Compared to total knee replacement’

 

Legal Manufacturer:                      

Biomet UK Limited
Waterton Industrial Estate
Bridgend
CF31 3XA
United Kingdom


All content herein is protected by copyright, trademarks and other intellectual property rights, as applicable, owned by or licensed to Zimmer Biomet or its affiliates unless otherwise indicated, and must not be redistributed, duplicated or disclosed, in whole or in part, without the express written consent of Zimmer Biomet.  
This material is intended for health care professionals.  Distribution to any other recipient is prohibited.
For product information, including indications, contraindications, warnings, precautions, potential adverse effects and patient counselling information, see the package insert and information on this website.