Literature DB >> 32306091

Should patients aged 75 years or older undergo medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty? A propensity score-matched study.

Ming Han Lincoln Liow1, Graham S Goh2, Hee-Nee Pang1, Darren Keng-Jin Tay1, Shi-Lu Chia1, Ngai-Nung Lo1, Seng-Jin Yeo1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: With increasing life expectancies worldwide, more elderly patients with isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis may become suitable UKA candidates. However, there is a paucity of literature comparing outcomes between older patients (≥ 75 years) and younger patients undergoing UKA. The aim of this study was to determine if there were differences in functional and HRQoL measures between older patients (≥ 75 years) and younger controls (< 75 years) undergoing primary UKA.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospectively collected registry data of 1041 patients who underwent primary, cemented, fixed-bearing medial UKA at a single institution from 2002-2013 were reviewed. Propensity scores generated using logistic regression was used to match older patients (≥ 75 years, n = 94) to controls (< 75 years, n = 188) in a 1:2 ratio. Knee Society Scores, Oxford Knee Score, Short Form-36, satisfaction/expectation scores, proportion of patients attaining OKS/SF-36 PCS MCID and survivorship were analysed.
RESULTS: Patients ≥ 75 years had significantly lower KSFS (67.1 ± 17.9 vs 79.4 ± 18.2, p < 0.001) and SF-36 PCS (47.3 ± 10.1 vs 50.4 ± 9.1, p = 0.01) as compared to the control group. In addition, a significantly lower proportion of patients ≥ 75 years attained MCID for SF-36 PCS when compared to the controls (50.0% vs 63.8%, p = 0.04). Survival rates at mean 8.3 ± 3.0 years were 98.9% (95% CI, 96.7-100) in the older group versus 92.8% (95% CI, 86.8-98.8) in the younger group (p = 0.31).
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the need to counsel older patients regarding potentially reduced improvements in functional outcomes, despite advantages of lower revision. However, UKA in older patients continues to be a viable option for isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III Propensity score matched study.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Knee arthroplasty; Minimally clinical important difference; Patient-reported outcome measures; Quality of life; Unicompartmental

Year:  2020        PMID: 32306091     DOI: 10.1007/s00402-020-03440-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg        ISSN: 0936-8051            Impact factor:   3.067


  4 in total

Review 1.  [Recommendations for unicondylar knee replacement in the course of time : A current inventory].

Authors:  J Beckmann; M T Hirschmann; G Matziolis; J Holz; R V Eisenhart-Rothe; C Becher
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 1.087

2.  Is there a difference in mobility and inpatient physical therapy need after primary total hip and knee arthroplasty? A decade-by-decade analysis from 60 to 99 years.

Authors:  Nana Sarpong; Friedrich Boettner; Fred Cushner; Ethan Krell; Ajay Premkumar; Alejandro Gonzalez Della Valle; Carola Hanreich
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2022-10-18       Impact factor: 2.928

3.  Revision indications for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.

Authors:  Mei Lin Tay; Sue R McGlashan; A Paul Monk; Simon W Young
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-02-25       Impact factor: 3.067

4.  Comparison of joint awareness after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and high tibial osteotomy: a retrospective multicenter study.

Authors:  Shotaro Watanabe; Ryuichiro Akagi; Taishi Ninomiya; Takeshi Yamashita; Masamichi Tahara; Seiji Kimura; Yoshimasa Ono; Satoshi Yamaguchi; Seiji Ohtori; Takahisa Sasho
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-07-16       Impact factor: 3.067

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.