Man Soo Kim1, In Jun Koh2, Chul Kyu Kim1, Keun Young Choi1, Jong Won Baek1, Yong In3. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222, Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06591, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Eunpyeong St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 1021,Tongil Ro, Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul, 03312, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222, Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06591, Republic of Korea. iy1000@catholic.ac.kr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the implant position and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) regarding joint awareness using the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) following between fixed-bearing (FB) and mobile-bearing (MB) unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) with a minimum of five years' follow-up. METHODS: One hundred fifteen consecutive UKAs (58 FB UKAs and 57 MB UKAs) performed were retrospectively evaluated. We compared the radiographic parameters including component positions and relationships as well as lower extremity alignment. Post-operative clinical outcomes were assessed using Knee Society Score (KSS), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, Tegner activity score, and FJS. RESULTS: The MB UKA group showed more convergent componentry relationship between femoral and tibial components (p < 0.001). The joint line of the MB UKA group was restored significantly better (p < 0.05). In addition, the positioning of femoral and tibial components of the MB UKA group showed less deviation from the weight-bearing line (WBL) (p < 0.05). Although there were no differences in KSS, WOMAC, and Tegner activity scores between the groups, the MB UKA group showed significantly better FJS than did the FB UKA group at five years post-operatively (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The MB UKA group had a more convergent componentry relationship, less deviation from WBL, better joint-line restoration, and reduced joint awareness than did the FB UKA group at five years follow-up.
PURPOSE: To compare the implant position and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) regarding joint awareness using the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) following between fixed-bearing (FB) and mobile-bearing (MB) unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) with a minimum of five years' follow-up. METHODS: One hundred fifteen consecutive UKAs (58 FB UKAs and 57 MB UKAs) performed were retrospectively evaluated. We compared the radiographic parameters including component positions and relationships as well as lower extremity alignment. Post-operative clinical outcomes were assessed using Knee Society Score (KSS), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, Tegner activity score, and FJS. RESULTS: The MB UKA group showed more convergent componentry relationship between femoral and tibial components (p < 0.001). The joint line of the MB UKA group was restored significantly better (p < 0.05). In addition, the positioning of femoral and tibial components of the MB UKA group showed less deviation from the weight-bearing line (WBL) (p < 0.05). Although there were no differences in KSS, WOMAC, and Tegner activity scores between the groups, the MB UKA group showed significantly better FJS than did the FB UKA group at five years post-operatively (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The MB UKA group had a more convergent componentry relationship, less deviation from WBL, better joint-line restoration, and reduced joint awareness than did the FB UKA group at five years follow-up.