Literature DB >> 28385936

Unsatisfactory outcomes following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients with partial thickness cartilage loss: a medium-term follow-up.

T W Hamilton1, H G Pandit2, A Inabathula1, S J Ostlere3, C Jenkins4, S J Mellon1, C A F Dodd4, D W Murray5.   

Abstract

AIMS: While medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is indicated for patients with full-thickness cartilage loss, it is occasionally used to treat those with partial-thickness loss. The aim of this study was to investigate the five-year outcomes in a consecutive series of UKAs used in patients with partial thickness cartilage loss in the medial compartment of the knee. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2002 and 2014, 94 consecutive UKAs were undertaken in 90 patients with partial thickness cartilage loss and followed up independently for a mean of six years (1 to 13). These patients had partial thickness cartilage loss either on both femur and tibia (13 knees), or on either the femur or the tibia, with full thickness loss on the other surface of the joint (18 and 63 knees respectively). Using propensity score analysis, these patients were matched 1:2 based on age, gender and pre-operative Oxford Knee Score (OKS) with knees with full thickness loss on both the femur and tibia. The functional outcomes, implant survival and incidence of re-operations were assessed at one, two and five years post-operatively. A subgroup of 36 knees in 36 patients with partial thickness cartilage loss, who had pre-operative MRI scans, was assessed to identify whether there were any factors identified on MRI that predicted the outcome.
RESULTS: Knees with partial thickness cartilage loss had significantly worse functional outcomes at one, two and five years post-operatively compared with those with full thickness loss. A quarter of knees with partial thickness loss had a fair or poor result and a fifth failed to achieve a clinically significant improvement in OKS from a baseline of four points or more; double that seen in knees with full thickness loss. Whilst there was no difference in implant survival between the groups, the rate of re-operation in knees with partial thickness loss was three times higher. Most of the re-operations (three-quarters), were arthroscopies for persistent pain. Compared with those achieving good or excellent outcomes, patients with partial thickness cartilage loss who achieved fair or poor outcomes were younger and had worse pre-operative functional scores. However, there were no other differences in the baseline demographics. MRI findings of full thickness cartilage loss, subchondral oedema, synovitis or effusion did not provide additional prognostic information.
CONCLUSION: Medial UKA should be reserved for patients with full thickness cartilage loss on both the femur and tibia. Whilst some patients with partial thickness loss achieve a good result we cannot currently identify which these will be and in this situation MRI is unhelpful and misleading. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:475-82. ©2017 The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Functional outcome; Implant survival; Partial thickness cartilage loss; Patient selection; Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28385936     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.99B4.BJJ-2016-1061.R1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bone Joint J        ISSN: 2049-4394            Impact factor:   5.082


  14 in total

1.  CORR Insights®: No Differences in Outcomes Scores or Survivorship of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Between Patients Younger or Older than 55 Years of Age at Minimum 10-year Followup.

Authors:  Alexander D Liddle
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 2.  Unicompartmental knee replacement - Current perspectives.

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

3.  [Effect of posterior tibial slope on the short-term outcome in mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty].

Authors:  H Wu; L P Pan; H Liu; H B Wang; T G Ning; Y P Cao
Journal:  Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban       Date:  2021-10-18

4.  Clinical validation and accuracy testing of a radiographic decision aid for unicondylar knee arthroplasty patient selection in midterm follow-up.

Authors:  Lars-Rene Tuecking; P Savov; T Richter; H Windhagen; M Ettinger
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2020-03-06       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Dependence of knee range of motion on the alignment of femoral and tibial components after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Mitsuru Hanada; Kensuke Hotta; Yukihiro Matsuyama
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2020-08-20

6.  A high rate of tibial plateau fractures after early experience with patient-specific instrumentation for unicompartmental knee arthroplasties.

Authors:  A M Leenders; M G M Schotanus; R J P Wind; R A P Borghans; N P Kort
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2018-04-30       Impact factor: 4.342

7.  Update on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Current indications and failure modes.

Authors:  Michele Vasso; Alexander Antoniadis; Naeder Helmy
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2018-08-01

8.  Robotic-arm assisted medial unicondylar knee arthroplasty versus jig-based unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with navigation control: study protocol for a prospective randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Babar Kayani; Sujith Konan; Jenni Tahmassebi; Atif Ayuob; Peter D Moriarty; Fares S Haddad
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2020-08-17       Impact factor: 2.279

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.  Most unicompartmental knee replacement revisions could be avoided: a radiographic evaluation of revised Oxford knees in the National Joint Registry.

Authors:  James A Kennedy; Jeya Palan; Stephen J Mellon; Colin Esler; Chris A F Dodd; Hemant G Pandit; David W Murray
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2020-02-10       Impact factor: 4.342

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.