Literature DB >> 35094135

All-polyethylene unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is associated with increased risks of poorer knee society knee score and lower satisfaction in obese patients.

Wayne Yong Xiang Foo1, Ming Han Lincoln Liow2, Jerry Yongqiang Chen2, Darren Keng Jin Tay2, Ngai Nung Lo2, Seng Jin Yeo3,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although metal-backed tibial component (MB) is biomechanically superior to all-polyethylene (AP) implants in fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), recent studies have shown comparable functional outcomes between the two. However, no study has examined this comparison in obese patients (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2). We investigated whether functional outcomes between the two implants differ among obese patients, and whether the extent of obesity influences these outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four hundred twenty-two UKA implants from 347 obese patients were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were assessed using the Knee Society Knee Score (KSKS) and Function Score (KSFS), the original Oxford Knee Score (OKS), and SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS). Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) attainment was recorded. Patients' fulfillment of expectations and satisfaction with the surgery outcome was also graded. Patients were further divided into lower obesity (BMI 30-34.9 kg/m2) and higher obesity (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2) to examine effect modification.
RESULTS: There were no differences in functional outcomes and quality-of-life scores, MCID attainment of functional scores, as well as satisfaction and expectation fulfillment between AP and MB. Among higher obesity patients, AP was associated with a poorer KSKS (p = 0.031) and lower proportion of satisfaction fulfillment (p = 0.041) 2 years postoperatively compared to MB.
CONCLUSION: We found no differences in functional and quality-of-life outcomes between fixed-bearing AP and MB tibial components among obese patients who underwent UKA. However, among higher obesity patients (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2), patients with AP tibial component were associated with lower KSKS score and a lower proportion of attaining satisfaction fulfillment 2 years postoperatively.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  All polyethylene; Functional outcomes; Metal backed; Obesity; Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Year:  2022        PMID: 35094135     DOI: 10.1007/s00402-021-04325-w

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


  32 in total

1.  Use of All-polyethylene Tibial Components in Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Increases the Risk of Early Failure.

Authors:  In Jun Koh; Kyung Hwan Suhl; Min Woo Kim; Man Soo Kim; Keun Young Choi; Yong In
Journal:  J Knee Surg       Date:  2017-01-13       Impact factor: 2.757

2.  Metal backing significantly decreases tibial strains in a medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty model.

Authors:  Scott R Small; Michael E Berend; Merrill A Ritter; Christine A Buckley; Renee D Rogge
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2010-09-25       Impact factor: 4.757

3.  Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty for knee osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Filippo Migliorini; Markus Tingart; Marc Niewiera; Björn Rath; Jörg Eschweiler
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2018-12-07

Review 4.  All-polyethylene tibial components are equal to metal-backed components: systematic review and meta-regression.

Authors:  Klaas Auke Nouta; Wiebe C Verra; Bart G Pijls; Jan W Schoones; Rob G H H Nelissen
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-09-13       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Provides Significantly Greater Improvement in Function than Total Knee Arthroplasty Despite Equivalent Satisfaction for Isolated Medial Compartment Osteoarthritis.

Authors:  David S Casper; Andrew N Fleischman; Paraskevi Vivian Papas; Jamie Grossman; Giles R Scuderi; Jess H Lonner
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2019-04-08       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  Survivorship of UKA in the middle-aged.

Authors:  Thomas J Heyse; Ahmed Khefacha; Geert Peersman; Philippe Cartier
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2011-10-01       Impact factor: 2.199

7.  Do bone loss and reconstruction procedures differ at revision of cemented unicompartmental knee prostheses according to the use of metal-back or all-polyethylene tibial component?

Authors:  T Rouanet; A Combes; H Migaud; G Pasquier
Journal:  Orthop Traumatol Surg Res       Date:  2013-06-28       Impact factor: 2.256

Review 8.  Uncertainties surrounding the choice of surgical treatment for 'bone on bone' medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee.

Authors:  Andrew Price; David Beard; Emmanuel Thienpont
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 2.199

9.  Metal-backed versus all-polyethylene unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Proximal tibial strain in an experimentally validated finite element model.

Authors:  C E H Scott; M J Eaton; R W Nutton; F A Wade; S L Evans; P Pankaj
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 5.853

10.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Current indications, technical issues and results.

Authors:  E Carlos Rodríguez-Merchán; Primitivo Gómez-Cardero
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2018-06-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.