Nicholas J Greco1,2,3, Adolph V Lombardi1,2,3,4, Jason M Hurst1,2,3, Michael J Morris1,2,3, Keith R Berend1,2,3. 1. Joint Implant Surgeons, New Albany, Ohio. 2. White Fence Surgical Suites, New Albany, Ohio. 3. Mount Carmel Health System, New Albany, Ohio. 4. Department of Orthopaedics, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous research has indicated that unicompartmental arthroplasty may be an effective treatment for focal osteonecrosis in the knee; however, these reports have been composed of small patient cohorts and without characterization of the osteonecrotic lesions. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of unicompartmental arthroplasty for the treatment of focal osteonecrosis within the medial femoral condyle including an assessment of lesion size. METHODS: A consecutive series of >5,000 unicompartmental knee arthroplasties performed at a single institution was retrospectively reviewed to identify cases of medial femoral condyle osteonecrosis with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Lesion size was classified according to the ratio of lesion width to condylar width, as well as lesion depth relative to condylar depth. Patient-reported outcome measures and need for a revision procedure were studied. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients (32 males, 32 females; 65 knees) with a mean age of 64 years were included. The mean patient follow-up was 5.3 years (range, 2 to 12 years). The mean ratio of lesion width to condylar width was 64%, the mean lesion depth was 1.11 cm, and 82% of cases demonstrated subchondral collapse. At the time of the latest follow-up, patients demonstrated substantial improvements in the pain, function, and clinical components of the Knee Society Score, by 36, 25, and 51, respectively. Four patients (6%) required a revision, of which only 1 was for aseptic loosening of the femoral component. CONCLUSIONS: Unicompartmental arthroplasty is an effective treatment for advanced-stage focal osteonecrosis of the medial femoral condyle. Loss of component fixation to the femoral condyle did not appear to be a substantial concern because there was only 1 femoral failure as a result of aseptic loosening, despite lesions affecting a significant portion of the femoral condyle. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
BACKGROUND: Previous research has indicated that unicompartmental arthroplasty may be an effective treatment for focal osteonecrosis in the knee; however, these reports have been composed of small patient cohorts and without characterization of the osteonecrotic lesions. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of unicompartmental arthroplasty for the treatment of focal osteonecrosis within the medial femoral condyle including an assessment of lesion size. METHODS: A consecutive series of >5,000 unicompartmental knee arthroplasties performed at a single institution was retrospectively reviewed to identify cases of medial femoral condyle osteonecrosis with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Lesion size was classified according to the ratio of lesion width to condylar width, as well as lesion depth relative to condylar depth. Patient-reported outcome measures and need for a revision procedure were studied. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients (32 males, 32 females; 65 knees) with a mean age of 64 years were included. The mean patient follow-up was 5.3 years (range, 2 to 12 years). The mean ratio of lesion width to condylar width was 64%, the mean lesion depth was 1.11 cm, and 82% of cases demonstrated subchondral collapse. At the time of the latest follow-up, patients demonstrated substantial improvements in the pain, function, and clinical components of the Knee Society Score, by 36, 25, and 51, respectively. Four patients (6%) required a revision, of which only 1 was for aseptic loosening of the femoral component. CONCLUSIONS: Unicompartmental arthroplasty is an effective treatment for advanced-stage focal osteonecrosis of the medial femoral condyle. Loss of component fixation to the femoral condyle did not appear to be a substantial concern because there was only 1 femoral failure as a result of aseptic loosening, despite lesions affecting a significant portion of the femoral condyle. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.