Literature DB >> 26928182

Predictors of Subjective Outcome After Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.

Hendrik A Zuiderbaan1, Jelle P van der List1, Harshvardhan Chawla1, Saker Khamaisy1, Ran Thein1, Andrew D Pearle1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Unexplainable pain after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) remains a leading cause for revision surgery. Therefore, the aim of this study is to identify the patient-specific variables that may influence subjective outcomes after medial UKA to optimize results.
METHODS: Retrospectively, we analyzed 104 consecutive medial UKA patients. The evaluated parameters consisted of age, body mass index, gender, preoperative radiographic severity of the various knee compartments, and preoperative and postoperative mechanical axis alignments.
RESULTS: At an average of 2.3-year follow-up, our data demonstrate that body mass index, gender, and preoperative severity among the various knee compartments do not influence Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) results. Preoperatively, patients aged <65 years had inferior WOMAC stiffness (4.6 vs 2.9, P = .001), pain (9.7 vs 7.6, P = .041), and total (37.2 vs 47.6, P = .028) scores vs patients aged ≥65 years. Postoperatively, only the difference on the WOMAC stiffness subscale remained significant between both age groups, in favor of patients aged ≥65 years (1.0 vs 1.5, P = .035). A postoperative varus mechanical axis alignment of 1°-4° correlated to significantly superior WOMAC pain (P = .03), function (P = .04), and total (P = .04) scores compared to a varus of ≤1° or ≥4°.
CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that greater pain relief can be expected in patients aged <65 years and that a postoperative lower limb alignment of 1°-4° varus should be pursued. Taking these factors into consideration will help to maximize clinical outcomes, fulfill patient expectations after medial UKA, and subsequently minimize revision rates.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  WOMAC; alignment; functional outcome; predictors; unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26928182     DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.12.038

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Arthroplasty        ISSN: 0883-5403            Impact factor:   4.757


  15 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.  [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

3.  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

4.  Robotic-assisted knee arthroplasty: an evolution in progress. A concise review of the available systems and the data supporting them.

Authors:  Johanna Elliott; Jobe Shatrov; Brett Fritsch; David Parker
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-09-07       Impact factor: 3.067

5.  The trends in robotic-assisted knee arthroplasty: A statewide database study.

Authors:  Qais Naziri; Steven A Burekhovich; Patrick J Mixa; Robert Pivec; Jared M Newman; Neil V Shah; Preetesh D Patel; Akhilesh Sastry
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2019-05-03

6.  Redislocation after Bearing Exchange for the Treatment of Mobile Bearing Dislocation in Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Sang-Gyun Kim; Hyun-Gon Kim; Seung-Yup Lee; Hong-Chul Lim; Ji-Hoon Bae
Journal:  Knee Surg Relat Res       Date:  2018-09-01

7.  Predictors of Midterm Outcomes after Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty in Asians.

Authors:  Hamid Rahmatullah Bin Abd Razak; Sanchalika Acharyya; Shi-Ming Tan; Hee-Nee Pang; Keng-Jin Darren Tay; Shi-Lu Chia; Ngai-Nung Lo; Seng-Jin Yeo
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2017-11-10

8.  Effects of Lower Limb Alignment and Tibial Component Inclination on the Biomechanics of Lateral Compartment in Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Peng-Fei Wen; Wan-Shou Guo; Fu-Qiang Gao; Qi-Dong Zhang; Ju-An Yue; Li-Ming Cheng; Guang-Duo Zhu
Journal:  Chin Med J (Engl)       Date:  2017-11-05       Impact factor: 2.628

9.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Current indications, technical issues and results.

Authors:  E Carlos Rodríguez-Merchán; Primitivo Gómez-Cardero
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2018-06-06

10.  Predictors of return to desired activity 12 months following unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Alexander D Harbourne; Maria T Sanchez-Santos; Nigel K Arden; Stephanie R Filbay
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2018-11-19       Impact factor: 3.717

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.