Request Information

The Oxford Partial Knee System is now available with Microplasty Instrumentation, simplifying the surgical technique, providing for accurate and reproducible implant positioning.1

 

Reduced OR Time2 and Reduced Risk of Dislocation3

By referencing normal, intact cartilage and the MCL to set the amount of tibial resection, the technique is more bone-conserving compared to Phase 3 Instrumentation.1

Microplasty instrumentation has resulted in a greater number of 3 mm and 4 mm bearings being implanted (92% vs. 84%; p=0.001)1 compared to Phase 3 Instrumentation, which have demonstrated better survivorship than 5 mm bearings, or thicker.4

The simplified Microplasty instrumentation showed a reduction in OR time of almost 9 minutes compared to Phase 3 Instrumentation.2

Microplasty instrumentation has also been shown to reduce the risk of dislocation3 compared to Phase 3 Instrumentation, and an improved alignment.5

The Microplasty Instrumentation platform includes innovative tools to help with:

  • Bone Preservation
    • Microplasty technique is designed to allow for minimal tibial resection and limit recuts, to help the surgeon avoid quadriceps disruption
  • Alignment
    • Femoral drill guide with IM Link provides for reproducible alignment of the femoral component
  • Precise Cutting
    • Size specific femoral instrumentation for precise 1 mm incremental bone removal
  • Simplified Balancing
    • Spherical mill and spigots provide a simplified approach to balancing the flexion and extension gaps

Additional Information

Professor Andrew Price Surgeon Testimonial

Oxford® Microplasty® Surgical Technique Animation

Oxford PKR: Microplasty vs Phase 3 Instrumentation

References

  1. Hurst JM et al. Radiographic Comparison of Mobile- Bearing Partial Knee Single-Peg versus Twin-Peg Design. The Journal of Arthroplasty. 30(3): 475-478. 2015.
  2. Berend, K, et al. New Instrumentation Reduces Operative Time in Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Using the Oxford Mobile Bearing Design. JISRF. Reconstructive Review. Vol. 5, No. 4, December 2015.
  3. Koh IJ, et al. Are the Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty new instruments reducing the bearing dislocation risk while improving components relationships? A case control study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2015.11.015
  4. Pandit, H., et al. The Clinical Outcome of Minimally Invasive Phase 3 Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A 15 Year Follow Up of 1000 UKAs. Bone Joint J. 2015 Nov;97-B(11):1493-500
  5. Tu, Yihui, et al. "Superior femoral component alignment can be achieved with Oxford microplasty instrumentation after minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty." Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy (2016): 1-7.