BACKGROUND: During medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), tibial tray implantation requires compromise between bone coverage and rotational position. It was hypothesized that morphometric tibial tray (MTT) would improve implant positioning and subsequently clinical outcomes as compared to symmetric tibial tray (STT). METHODS: A total of 106 patients who underwent medial UKA in our department between January 2017 and March 2018 were included matched on gender and age (53 in each group). Inclusion criteria were symptomatic medial femorotibial osteoarthritis, functional anterior cruciate ligament, primary arthritis, or osteonecrosis. Rotation of the tibial implant, tibial bone coverage, medial and posterior overhang were assessed with a postoperative computed tomography scan. The Knee Society Score (KSS), the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Short Form (KOOS SF), and the quality of life score EuroQoL 5-Dimensions 3-Levels (EQ5D3L) were assessed at a minimum of 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: Implants of the STT group exhibited more external rotation (6.3° ± 4.02° vs 4.6° ± 3.59°; P = .04), and medial and posterior overhang >3 mm (35% vs 0% and 22% vs 0%; P < .0001) but no difference for tibial bone coverage (97.3% ± 11.35% vs 94.7% ± 10.89%; P = .23). Global KSS (188.6 ± 6.6 vs 175.2 ± 31.7; P < .01), KOOS SF (16.9 ± 6.1 vs 22.5 ± 11.8; P < .003), and EQ5D3L (1 ± 0.1 vs 0.9 ± 0.2; P < .001) were higher in MTT group. According to the multivariate analysis, MTT had a positive independent effect on the KSS, KOOS SF, and EQ5D3L. CONCLUSION: The use of an MTT in medial UKA allowed better implant positioning when decreasing the rate of overhang; superior short-term clinical outcomes were found as compared to STT.
BACKGROUND: During medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), tibial tray implantation requires compromise between bone coverage and rotational position. It was hypothesized that morphometric tibial tray (MTT) would improve implant positioning and subsequently clinical outcomes as compared to symmetric tibial tray (STT). METHODS: A total of 106 patients who underwent medial UKA in our department between January 2017 and March 2018 were included matched on gender and age (53 in each group). Inclusion criteria were symptomatic medial femorotibial osteoarthritis, functional anterior cruciate ligament, primary arthritis, or osteonecrosis. Rotation of the tibial implant, tibial bone coverage, medial and posterior overhang were assessed with a postoperative computed tomography scan. The Knee Society Score (KSS), the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Short Form (KOOS SF), and the quality of life score EuroQoL 5-Dimensions 3-Levels (EQ5D3L) were assessed at a minimum of 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: Implants of the STT group exhibited more external rotation (6.3° ± 4.02° vs 4.6° ± 3.59°; P = .04), and medial and posterior overhang >3 mm (35% vs 0% and 22% vs 0%; P < .0001) but no difference for tibial bone coverage (97.3% ± 11.35% vs 94.7% ± 10.89%; P = .23). Global KSS (188.6 ± 6.6 vs 175.2 ± 31.7; P < .01), KOOS SF (16.9 ± 6.1 vs 22.5 ± 11.8; P < .003), and EQ5D3L (1 ± 0.1 vs 0.9 ± 0.2; P < .001) were higher in MTT group. According to the multivariate analysis, MTT had a positive independent effect on the KSS, KOOS SF, and EQ5D3L. CONCLUSION: The use of an MTT in medial UKA allowed better implant positioning when decreasing the rate of overhang; superior short-term clinical outcomes were found as compared to STT.