Literature DB >> 34269892

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

Shotaro Watanabe1,2, Ryuichiro Akagi3,4, Taishi Ninomiya1,5, Takeshi Yamashita6, Masamichi Tahara7, Seiji Kimura2, Yoshimasa Ono1,2, Satoshi Yamaguchi2,8, Seiji Ohtori2, Takahisa Sasho1,2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and high tibial osteotomy (HTO) are established treatments for medial compartment osteoarthritis (OA) or osteonecrosis (ON) of the knee joint, and the predominance of either procedure is inconclusive. We compared the awareness of the knee after UKA and HTO using the Forgotten joint score-12 (FJS).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective, multicenter study. Ninety-six knees of 90 patients who received UKA or HTO and were followed-up for at least 1 year were analyzed. Postoperative FJS was compared between the two groups and evaluated for the effect of patient-related factors and clinical outcomes. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to predict FJS.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the FJS between the UKA and HTO groups (p = 0.24). FJS did not correlate with any of the patient-related factors. There was a correlation between the FJS and each item of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores (KOOS) and Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale (LKS). In multiple linear regression analysis, lower BMI, the diagnosis of OA Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grade ≥ 3, and ON were significant predictors of better FJS. In both groups, FJS was correlated with each item of the KOOS and LKS. Internal consistency in terms of Cronbach's alpha was excellent.
CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in FJS between patients who underwent UKA and HTO. Lower BMI, the diagnosis of OA KL grade ≥ 3, and ON were significant predictors of better FJS.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Awareness; Forgotten joint score-12 (FJS); High tibial osteotomy (HTO); Patient-reported outcome; Unicompartmental arthroplasty (UKA); Validation

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34269892     DOI: 10.1007/s00402-021-03994-x

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


  21 in total

1.  Clinical outcome of bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for both medial and lateral femorotibial arthritis: a systematic review-is there proof of concept?

Authors:  Keizo Wada; Andrew Price; Kirill Gromov; Sebastien Lustig; Anders Troelsen
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2020-06-11       Impact factor: 3.067

2.  The outcomes of mobile bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty on anteromedial osteoarthritis of the knee in the same patient.

Authors:  Boonchana Pongcharoen; Jitisak Timjang
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2020-07-24       Impact factor: 3.067

3.  Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty vs Total Knee Arthroplasty for Medial Compartment Arthritis in Patients Older Than 75 Years: Comparable Reoperation, Revision, and Complication Rates.

Authors:  Homayoun Siman; Atul F Kamath; Nazly Carrillo; William S Harmsen; Mark W Pagnano; Rafael J Sierra
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2017-01-24       Impact factor: 4.757

4.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is superior to high tibial osteotomy in post-operative recovery and participation in recreational and sports activities.

Authors:  Man Soo Kim; In Jun Koh; Sueen Sohn; Ji Hwan Jeong; Yong In
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-12-18       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Open wedge high tibial osteotomy (HTO) versus mobile bearing unicondylar medial joint replacement: five years results.

Authors:  Wolf Petersen; Sebastian Metzlaff
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2016-05-06       Impact factor: 3.067

6.  Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty vs High Tibial Osteotomy for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  ZhenWu Cao; XiuJun Mai; Jun Wang; EnHui Feng; YongMing Huang
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2017-12-02       Impact factor: 4.757

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

Authors:  Ming Han Lincoln Liow; Graham S Goh; Hee-Nee Pang; Darren Keng-Jin Tay; Shi-Lu Chia; Ngai-Nung Lo; Seng-Jin Yeo
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2020-04-18       Impact factor: 3.067

8.  A mid term comparison of open wedge high tibial osteotomy vs unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee.

Authors:  Ryohei Takeuchi; Yusuke Umemoto; Masato Aratake; Haruhiko Bito; Izumi Saito; Ken Kumagai; Yohei Sasaki; Yasushi Akamatsu; Hiroyuki Ishikawa; Tomihisa Koshino; Tomoyuki Saito
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2010-08-30       Impact factor: 2.359

Review 9.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, is it superior to high tibial osteotomy in treating unicompartmental osteoarthritis? A meta-analysis and systemic review.

Authors:  Marcel Budhi Santoso; Lidong Wu
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2017-03-28       Impact factor: 2.359

10.  Greater activity, better range of motion and higher quality of life following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a comparative case-control study.

Authors:  Georg Hauer; Patrick Sadoghi; Gerwin A Bernhardt; Matthias Wolf; Paul Ruckenstuhl; Andrea Fink; Andreas Leithner; Gerald Gruber
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2019-11-04       Impact factor: 3.067

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.