[Minimally invasive unicondylar knee arthroplasty with simultaneous ACL reconstruction : treatment of medial compartment osteoarthritis and cruciate ligament defect]

Is combined robotically assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction a good solution for the young arthritic knee?

PURPOSE

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) deficiency can be a consequence or a cause of femoro-tibial osteoarthritis (OA). Several studies have published satisfactory outcomes of unicompartimental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and combined ACL reconstruction despite its absence classically being considered a contraindication. A major challenge in the ACL deficient knee is obtaining appropriate gap balancing and limb axis. Robotically assisted UKA allows for precise control of these factors; however, it's utilisation as a tool with combined ACL reconstruction and UKA has not been described. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of robotically assisted UKA with combined ACL reconstruction.

METHODS

This was a retrospective single-centre study of ten patients operated by a single surgeon from 2016 to 2020. All surgery was performed using a cemented fixed bearing UKA prosthesis (Journey uni, Smith and Nephew®) (8 medial, 2 lateral) inserted with the assistance of an image-free robotic-assisted system (BlueBelt, Navio, Smith and Nephew®). All ACL reconstructions were performed using hamstring autograft. Clinical assessment included International Knee Score (IKS) score, Tegner score and patient satisfaction. Radiological assessment was performed to assess radiolucent lines, progression of OA in the other compartments, Hip-Knee-Ankle angle and Posterior Tibial Slope.

RESULTS

There were eight females (80%), mean age was 57 ± 7 [48-70], mean BMI was 26 ± 3 [22-31]. The mean follow-up was 45 months ± 13 months [24-66]. Mean post-operative IKS knee and function score were respectively 96 ± 4.5 [88-100] and 93 ± 8.2 [74-100], mean Tegner score was 4.5 ± 1.4 [3-6]. Nine patients (90%) returned to sport; one patient (10%) was dissatisfied because of residual pain preventing a return to a desired level of sport. 100% of the radiological objectives were achieved. No radiolucent lines were seen at the last follow-up. There were two re-operations (20%) for stiffness requiring arthroscopic arthrolysis at two and three months respectively following surgery, with full recovery of the flexion at the last follow-up in both cases. No other complications were observed.

CONCLUSION

Robotic UKA associated with ACL reconstruction provides satisfactory early patient outcomes and accurate implant positioning. The first results in terms of return to sports were promising.

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in association with medial unicompartmental knee replacement: a retrospective study comparing clinical and radiological outcomes of two different implant design

PURPOSE

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) combined with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has recently been suggested as a feasible treatment option for young and active patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis (OA) and ACL deficiency. The aim of this study is to evaluate retrospectively the outcomes of two different implant designs in patients with medial OA secondary to traumatic ACL rupture, who underwent combined ACL reconstruction and unicompartmental knee replacement.

METHODS

From January 2007, to December 2013, 24 patients with medial OA secondary to ACL rupture underwent medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and ACL reconstruction. Nine patients received a mobile bearing UKA (Group 1) and fifteen a fixed-bearing one (Group 2). The mean follow-up was 53 ± 8.3 months for Group 1 and 42 ± 6.7 months for Group 2. Knee Society Score (KSS), Western Ontario and McMaster Index of Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index and radiological evaluation used to assess the implant loosening alignment of the knee joint and tibial slope were recorded pre-operatively and at the last follow-up.

RESULTS

At the final follow-up, all patients showed statistically significant clinical improvements with respect to the pre-operative values (p < 0.05). No significant difference was observed in WOMAC index and KSS both objective and functional between groups at the last follow-up (KSS obj. 73.4 ± 9.3 vs 77.3 ± 10.5; KSS funct. 86.2 ± 6.2 vs 84.7 ± 5.9; WOMAC 79.3 ± 7.3 vs 81.3 ± 7.6 for Group 1 and 2, respectively). No differences in radiolucent lines were found between the groups.

CONCLUSION

The use of different prosthesis design (fixed- or mobile-bearing) during a combined procedure of ACL reconstruction and medial unicompartmental arthroplasty does not affect the middle-term clinical and radiological outcomes.

Satisfactory outcomes following combined unicompartmental knee replacement and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

PURPOSE

There exist limited options for treatment of patients with combined medial compartment arthritis and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) deficiency. Ideal treatment is one that offers lasting relief of symptoms not compromising any future surgery. Unicompartmental knee replacement has shown consistently good results in the relatively young and active population, but there is a high reported incidence of failure up to 20%, if performed in ACL-deficient knees. One of the recognized treatment modality is combined ACL reconstruction and unicompartmental arthroplasty. A systematic review was conducted looking at the demographics, techniques, complications and outcome of combined ACL reconstruction with unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

A systematic literature search within the online Medline, PubMed Database, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane and Google Scholar was carried out until October 2016 to identify relevant articles. A study was defined eligible if it met the following inclusion criteria: the surgical procedure combined unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; patient's clinical and/or functional outcomes were reported; any complications intra-operatively and post-operatively were reported; and the full-text articles, written in English, German, Italian, Dutch or Spanish, were available. Quality and risk of bias assessments were done using standardized criteria set.

RESULTS

A total of 8 studies met the inclusion criteria encompassing 186 patients who were treated with simultaneous ACL reconstruction and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. The mean age was 50.5 years (range from 44 to 56) with a mean follow-up of 37.6 months (range from 24 to 60). There was an improvement in mean Oxford Score from 27.5 to 36.8. Complications reported included tibial inlay dislocation (n = 3), conversion to a total knee arthroplasty (n = 1), infection requiring two-stage revision (n = 2), deep-vein thrombosis (n = 1), stiffness requiring manipulation under anaesthesia (n = 1), retropatellar pain requiring arthroscopic adhesiolysis (n = 1).

CONCLUSION

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty combined with ACL reconstruction can be a valid treatment option for selected patients, with combined medial unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis and ACL deficiency.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic Review of Level IV Studies, Level IV.

ACL reconstruction with unicondylar replacement in knee with functional instability and osteoarthritis

Severe symptomatic osteoarthritis in young and active patients with pre-existing deficiency of the anterior cruciate ligament and severe functionally instability is a difficult subgroup to manage. There is considerable debate regarding management of young patients with isolated unicompartment osteoarthritis and concomitant ACL deficiency. A retrospective analysis of was done in 9 patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis with ACL deficiencies and functional instability that were treated with unicompartment knee arthroplasty and ACL reconstruction between April 2002 and June 2005. The average arc of flexion was 119° (range 85° to 135°) preoperatively and 125° (range 105° to 140°). There were no signs of instability during the follow up of patients. No patients in this group were reoperated. In this small series we have shown that instability can be corrected and pain relieved by this combined procedure.