Literature DB >> 31094840

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.

Merrill Lee1, Jerry Chen, Chia Shi Lu, Ngai Nung Lo, Seng Jin Yeo.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although patients who have undergone unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) report improvements in functional outcomes, orthopaedic surgeons tend to avoid UKA in younger patients due to implant survivorship concerns. As a result, few studies specifically have examined the outcomes of patients 55 years and younger. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Is there a difference between two cohorts of patients: those 55 years and younger and those 56 years and older who underwent UKA in terms of: (1) functional outcomes scores, (2) quality-of-life scores, and (3) implant survivorship free from all-cause revision.
METHODS: Between 2004 and 2007, 100 patients 55 years and younger underwent UKA at one institution. Of those, three (3%) died, and 13 (13%) were lost to followup before the 10-year minimum required for this study, leaving 84 patients available for propensity score matching. During that same period, 343 patients older than 56 years underwent UKA; 48 (14%) died, and 59 (17%) were lost to followup before 10 years, leaving 236 patients available in that group for potential inclusion. After propensity score matching to account for confounding preoperative variables (surgeon, patient's body mass index, and sex), the patients were divided into two groups based on age: (1) 55 years and younger, (2) 56 years and older. There were 71 patients in each group, with minimum followup of 10 years. The mean age in the group of patients 55 years and younger was 52 years (range, 45-55 years) and that of the older patients was 64 years (range, 56-80 years). The mean (range) followup in both groups was 13 years (range, 11-15 years). Patient functional outcomes, quality of life scores, and implant survivorship were assessed for both groups of patients. To detect a minimum clinically important difference of 5 points in the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), a sample size of at least 68 patients in each group would be required to achieve a power of 0.95.
RESULTS: With the numbers available, there were no differences between patients 55 years and younger and those 56 years and older in terms of OKS (18 ± 6 versus 20 ± 8, mean difference -1.8; 95% CI, -4.1 to 0.5; p = 0.133) and Knee Society Knee Score (84 ± 16 versus 79 ± 21, mean difference 4.7; 95% CI, -1.8 to 11.2; p = 0.157) at 10 years postoperatively. With the numbers available, there were no differences between patients 55 years and younger and those 56 years and older in terms of the physical component summary (PCS) (47 ± 10 versus 48 ± 11, mean difference -0.4; 95% CI, -4.0 to 3.2; p = 0.827) and the mental component summary (MCS) (52 ± 12 versus 51 ± 12, mean difference 1.4; 95% CI, -2.6 to 5.4; p = 0.491) of the SF-36 at 10 years postoperatively. Finally, we found no differences with the numbers available between patients 55 years and younger and those 56 years and older in terms of survivorship free from all-cause revision at a minimum of 10 years followup (both groups had the same 10-year revision-free rate of 0.96; 95% CI, 0.91-1.00).
CONCLUSIONS: Because we found few differences between patients 55 years and younger and those older than that in terms of functional outcomes, quality of life, and implant survivorship after UKA, we believe that appropriately selected younger patients should not be excluded from the potential benefits of undergoing UKA, especially in the hands of high-volume surgeons. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31094840      PMCID: PMC6554132          DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000737

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  39 in total

1.  Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients younger and older than 60 years of age.

Authors:  A J Price; C A F Dodd; U G C Svard; D W Murray
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2005-11

2.  Treatment of medial compartment arthritis of the knee: a survey of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons.

Authors:  C Lowry Barnes; J Wesley Mesko; Steven M Teeny; Sally C York
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 4.757

3.  Failure mechanisms after unicompartmental and tricompartmental primary knee replacement with cement.

Authors:  O Furnes; B Espehaug; S A Lie; S E Vollset; L B Engesaeter; L I Havelin
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Functional improvement after unicompartmental knee replacement: a follow-up study with a performance based knee test.

Authors:  Lucas L A Kleijn; Wouter L W van Hemert; Will G H Meijers; Arnold D M Kester; Lukas Lisowski; Bernd Grimm; Ide C Heyligers
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2007-06-23       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Unicompartmental or total knee replacement: the 15-year results of a prospective randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  J Newman; R V Pydisetty; C Ackroyd
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2009-01

6.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients sixty years of age or younger.

Authors:  Donald W Pennington; John J Swienckowski; William B Lutes; Gregory N Drake
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Unicondylar knee replacement for primary osteoarthritis: a prospective follow-up study of 1,819 patients from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register.

Authors:  Esa Koskinen; Pekka Paavolainen; Antti Eskelinen; Pekka Pulkkinen; Ville Remes
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 3.717

8.  Return to sports and recreational activity after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Florian D Naal; Michael Fischer; Alexander Preuss; Joerg Goldhahn; Fabian von Knoch; Stefan Preiss; Urs Munzinger; Tomas Drobny
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2007-06-08       Impact factor: 6.202

9.  Higher cumulative revision rate of knee arthroplasties in younger patients with osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Ola L A Harrysson; Otto Robertsson; Jamal F Nayfeh
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Correlated physical and mental health summary scores for the SF-36 and SF-12 Health Survey, V.I.

Authors:  Sepideh S Farivar; William E Cunningham; Ron D Hays
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2007-09-07       Impact factor: 3.186

View more
  4 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 arthroplasty in patients under the age of 60 years provides excellent clinical outcomes and 10-year implant survival: a systematic review : A study performed by the Early Osteoarthritis group of ESSKA-European Knee Associates section.

Authors:  Theofylaktos Kyriakidis; Vipin Asopa; Mike Baums; René Verdonk; Trifon Totlis
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2022-06-28       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  CORR® International-Asia-Pacific: Adding Another String to Your Bow.

Authors:  Tae Kyun Kim
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 4.755

4.  A comparative study of 21,194 UKAs and 49,270 HTOs for the risk of unanticipated events in mid-age patients from the national claims data in South Korea.

Authors:  Sun-Ho Lee; Hae-Rim Kim; Hyoung-Yeon Seo; Jong-Keun Seon
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-02-08       Impact factor: 2.362

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.