| Literature DB >> 33795962 |
Tomoyuki Kamenaga1, Takafumi Hiranaka1, Yuichi Hida1, Takaaki Fujishiro1, Koji Okamoto1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although the mobile-bearing Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (OUKA) seems an appropriate procedure to treat spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee (SONK), aseptic tibial component loosening was the leading cause for medial UKA failure. This study aimed to observe short-term and midterm clinical outcomes following OUKA and determine whether tibial lesion affects the procedure clinical and radiographic outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: Arthroplasty; Knee; Osteonecrosis
Year: 2021 PMID: 33795962 PMCID: PMC7976869 DOI: 10.1590/1413-785220212901233328
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Ortop Bras ISSN: 1413-7852 Impact factor: 0.513
Patient demographic data.
| Group F (N=34) | Group T (N=26) | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| preoperatively | 23.4±9.2 | 22.8±9.4 | 0.65 |
| final follow-up | 37.8±8.8 | 38.3±9.1 | 0.76 |
| improvement | 14.4±6.7 | 15.5±6.1 | 0.51 |
|
| |||
| preoperatively | 109.8±12.9 | 107.9±12.0 | 0.88 |
| final follow-up | 132.2±11.5 | 130.7±11.9 | 0.71 |
| improvement | 22.3±6.1 | 22.8±5.7 | 0.85 |
| Complications | |||
| Superficial infection | 0 | 1 | N.S |
| Deep infection | 1 | 0 | N.S |
| Tibial plateau fracture | 0 | 1 | N.S |
| Revision cases | 1 | 0 | N.S |
|
|
|
| |
| Sex | male 8, female 26 | male 5, female 21 | NSw |
| Age | 73.4 ± 6.4 y.o | 72.7 ± 7.6 y.o | P=0.86 |
| Body mass index | 22.7 ± 3.5 kg/m2 | 23.5 ± 3.7 kg/m2 | P-0.42 |
| Varus deformity | 7.6° ± 5.3° | 7.1° ± 4.7° | P=0.77 |
| Period from onset to surgery | 61.0±9.8 weeks | 68.6±11.1weeks | P=0.66 |
| Follow-up | 60.5±9.3 months | 56.7±10.4 months | P=0.49 |
Group F: necrotic lesion confined to the femur; Group T: necrotic lesion spread to the tibia; N.S: not significant.
Figure 1Preoperative T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging classification. (A): Group F - necrotic lesion confined to the femur; (B) Group T - necrotic lesion spread to the tibia.
Figure 2Standardized analysis of the tibial bone-cement interface in four zones, according to a previously reported method.
Figure 3Assessment of tibial component subsidence. The subsidence of the tibial component was evaluated according to changes in radiographic parameters from 2 weeks postoperatively (A); to final follow-up (B). Subsidence distance (mm) = b − a. Subsidence angle (°) = β − α.
Clinical outcome for both groups.
| Group F (N=34) | Group T (N=26) | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| preoperatively | 23.4±9.2 | 22.8±9.4 | 0.65 |
| final follow-up | 37.8±8.8 | 38.3±9.1 | 0.76 |
| improvement | 14.4±6.7 | 15.5±6.1 | 0.51 |
|
| |||
| preoperatively | 109.8±12.9 | 107.9±12.0 | 0.88 |
| final follow-up | 132.2±11.5 | 130.7±11.9 | 0.71 |
| improvement | 22.3±6.1 | 22.8±5.7 | 0.85 |
|
| |||
| Superficial infection | 0 | 1 | N.S |
| Deep infection | 1 | 0 | N.S |
| Tibial plateau fracture | 0 | 1 | N.S |
|
| 1 | 0 | N.S |
Group F: necrotic lesion confined to the femur; Group T: necrotic lesion spread to the tibia; OKS: Oxford knee score; MFA: Maximum flexion angle; N.S: not significant.
Radiographic evaluation for both groups.
| Group F (N=34) | Group T (N=26) | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| No RLL | 18/34 (52.9%) | 14/26 (53.8%) | 0.79 |
| Partial RLL | 8/34 (23.5%) | 7/26 (26.9%) | 0.53 |
| Completed RLL | 6/34 (17.6%) | 4/26 (15.3 %) | 0.55 |
|
| |||
| Subsidence distance (mm) | 0.98±0.08 | 1.09±0.10 | 0.28 |
| Subsidence angle (°) | 0.85±0.11 | 1.01±0.12 | 0.24 |
Group F: necrotic lesion confined to the femur; Group T: necrotic lesion spread to the tibia; RLL: radiolucent line.