Literature DB >> 26590566

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty: Which type of artificial joint do patients forget?

Hendrik A Zuiderbaan1, Jelle P van der List2, Saker Khamaisy2, Danyal H Nawabi2, Ran Thein2, C Ishmael2, Sophia Paul2, Andrew D Pearle2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: During recent years, there has been an intensive growth of interest in the patient's perception of functional outcome. The Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) is a recently introduced score that measures joint awareness of patients who have undergone knee arthroplasty and is less limited by ceiling effects. The aim of this study was to compare the FJS between patients who undergo medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and patients who undergo total knee arthroplasty (TKA) 1 and 2 years post-operatively.
METHODS: This prospective study compares the FJS at a minimum of one (average 1.5 years, range 1.0-1.9) and a minimum of 2 years (average 2.5 years, range 2.0-3.6) post-operatively between patients who underwent medial UKA and TKA.
RESULTS: One-hundred and thirty patients were included. Sixty-five patients underwent medial UKA and 65 patients underwent TKA. At both follow-up points, the FJS was significantly higher in the UKA group (FJS 1 year 73.9 ± 22.8, FJS 2 year 74.3 ± 24.8) in contrast to the TKA group (FJS 1 year 59.3 ± 29.5 (p = 0.002), FJS 2 year 59.8 ± 31.5, (p = 0.004)). No significant improvement in the FJS was observed between 1- and 2-year follow-up of the two cohorts.
CONCLUSION: Patients who undergo UKA are more likely to forget their artificial joint in daily life and consequently may be more satisfied. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Forgotten joint score; Subjective outcome; Total knee arthroplasty; Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26590566     DOI: 10.1007/s00167-015-3868-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc        ISSN: 0942-2056            Impact factor:   4.342


  28 in total

1.  Incidence of osteotomies around the knee for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a 22-year population-based study.

Authors:  Tuukka T Niinimäki; Antti Eskelinen; Pasi Ohtonen; Mika Junnila; Juhana Leppilahti
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-02-23       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  The Oxford hip and knee outcome questionnaires for arthroplasty.

Authors:  P B Pynsent; D J Adams; S P Disney
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2005-02

3.  Mobile bearing UKA compared to fixed bearing TKA: a randomized prospective study.

Authors:  Peng-Fei Sun; Yu-Hua Jia
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2011-02-22       Impact factor: 2.199

4.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus high tibial osteotomy: United States practice patterns for the surgical treatment of unicompartmental arthritis.

Authors:  Benedict U Nwachukwu; Frank M McCormick; William W Schairer; Rachel M Frank; Matthew T Provencher; Martin W Roche
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2014-04-05       Impact factor: 4.757

5.  Measuring improvement following total hip and knee arthroplasty using patient-based measures of outcome.

Authors:  Robert G Marx; Edward C Jones; Nawal C Atwan; Robert F Closkey; Eduardo A Salvati; Thomas P Sculco
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum of ten years of follow-up.

Authors:  Richard A Berger; R Michael Meneghini; Joshua J Jacobs; Mitchell B Sheinkop; Craig J Della Valle; Aaron G Rosenberg; Jorge O Galante
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Construct Validity and Test Re-Test Reliability of the Forgotten Joint Score.

Authors:  Simon M Thompson; Lucy J Salmon; Justin M Webb; Leo A Pinczewski; Justin P Roe
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2015-05-13       Impact factor: 4.757

8.  Early failure of minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is associated with obesity.

Authors:  Keith R Berend; Adolph V Lombardi; Thomas H Mallory; Joanne B Adams; Kari L Groseth
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Comparison of the responsiveness of the SF-36, the Oxford Knee Score, and the Knee Society Clinical Rating System in patients undergoing total knee replacement.

Authors:  Yu Ko; Ngai-Nung Lo; Seng-Jin Yeo; Kuang-Ying Yang; William Yeo; Hwei-Chi Chong; Julian Thumboo
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2013-03-05       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  Comparative responsiveness of outcome measures for total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  K Giesinger; D F Hamilton; B Jost; B Holzner; J M Giesinger
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2013-11-18       Impact factor: 6.576

View more
  31 in total

Review 1.  Larger range of motion and increased return to activity, but higher revision rates following unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in patients under 65: a systematic review.

Authors:  Laura J Kleeblad; Jelle P van der List; Hendrik A Zuiderbaan; Andrew D Pearle
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-11-28       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 2.  [Recommendations for unicondylar knee replacement in the course of time : A current inventory].

Authors:  J Beckmann; M T Hirschmann; G Matziolis; J Holz; R V Eisenhart-Rothe; C Becher
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 3.  [Focal femoral resurfacing and unicompartmental knee replacement : Between osteotomy and total knee replacement].

Authors:  Philipp Henle; Matthias J Feucht; Christian Stärke
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2021-04-13       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  The pertinent question in treatment of unicompartmental osteoarthritis of the knee: high tibial osteotomy or unicondylar knee arthroplasty or total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Roland Becker; Michael Hirschmann
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Total versus partial knee replacement in patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis: the TOPKAT RCT.

Authors:  David J Beard; Loretta J Davies; Jonathan A Cook; Graeme MacLennan; Andrew Price; Seamus Kent; Jemma Hudson; Andrew Carr; Jose Leal; Helen Campbell; Ray Fitzpatrick; Nigel Arden; David Murray; Marion K Campbell
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 4.014

6.  Survivorship and patient satisfaction of robotic-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum two-year follow-up.

Authors:  Andrew D Pearle; Jelle P van der List; Lily Lee; Thomas M Coon; Todd A Borus; Martin W Roche
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2017-02-06       Impact factor: 2.199

7.  The forgotten joint score in total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Geert Peersman; Jeroen Verhaegen; Barbara Favier
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2019-05-21       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 8.  Unicompartmental knee replacement - Current perspectives.

Authors:  Stefano Campi; Saket Tibrewal; Rory Cuthbert; Sheo B Tibrewal
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2017-11-28

9.  Native rotational knee kinematics is restored after lateral UKA but not after medial UKA.

Authors:  Keizo Wada; Daisuke Hamada; Tomoya Takasago; Akihiro Nitta; Tomohiro Goto; Ichiro Tonogai; Yoshihiro Tsuruo; Koichi Sairyo
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2018-03-26       Impact factor: 4.342

10.  Joint awareness after ACL reconstruction: patient-reported outcomes measured with the Forgotten Joint Score-12.

Authors:  Henrik Behrend; Vilijam Zdravkovic; Johannes M Giesinger; Karlmeinrad Giesinger
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-10-19       Impact factor: 4.342

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.