Good mid- to long-term results of the cemented oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in a non-designer centre

The Mobile Bearing Prosthesis: How to know When It's is Right for My Patient and Tips for Surgical Success

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has seen a revival of popularity in the last thirty years in the United States. The benefits of a medial UKA over the previous "gold standard" for knee osteoarthritis, the total knee arthroplasty, include increased postoperative range of motion (ROM), maintenance of natural knee mechanics, faster recovery, similar pain relief and decreased morbidity. Mobile-bearing UKA (MB-UKA) implants have been developed to improve polyethylene wear while maintaining normal knee kinematics. In this review, we will cover indications and contraindications for a MB-UKA, patient selection, and technical tips and tricks.

Image-based robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty provides high survival and good-to-excellent clinical outcomes at minimum 10 years follow-up

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present study was to determine the incidence of revision and report on clinical outcomes at a minimum of 10 years follow-up in patients who had received a medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) with an three-dimensional image-based robotic system.

METHODS

A total of 239 patients (247 knees), who underwent medial robotic-arm assisted (RA)-UKA at a single center between April 2011 and June 2013, were assessed. The mean age at surgery was 67.0 years (SD 8.4). Post-operatively, patients were administered the Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12) and asked about their satisfaction (from 1 to 5). Post-operative complications were recorded. Failure mechanisms, revisions and reoperations were collected. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were calculated, considering revision as the event of interest.

RESULTS

A total of 188 patients (196 knees) were assessed at a mean follow-up of 11.1 years (SD 0.5, range 10.0-11.9), resulting in a 79.4% follow-up rate. Seven RA-UKA underwent revision, resulting in a survivorship rate of 96.4% (CI 94.6%-99.2%). Causes of revision included aseptic loosening (2 cases), infection (1 case), post-traumatic (1 case), and unexplained pain (3 cases). The mean FJS-12 and satisfaction were 82.2 (SD 23.9) and 4.4 (SD 0.9), respectively. Majority of cases (174/196, 88.8%) attained the Patient Acceptable Symptoms State (PASS, FJS-12 > 40.63). Male subjects had a higher probability of attaining a "forgotten joint" (p < 0.001) and high satisfaction (equal to 5, p < 0.05), when compared to females.

CONCLUSIONS

Three-dimensional image-based RA-UKA demonstrated high implant survivorship and good-to-excellent clinical outcomes at minimum 10 years follow-up. Pain of unknown origin represented the most common reason for RA-UKA revision.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Coronal tibiofemoral subluxation under valgus stress force radiography is useful for evaluating postoperative coronal tibiofemoral subluxation in mobile-bearing UKA

PURPOSE

Coronal tibiofemoral subluxation (CTFS) is considered a controversial and potential contraindication to unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) but is less discussed. The study aims to observe the CTFS in a cohort of patients before and after mobile-bearing UKA and to investigate the relationship between preoperative variables (preoperative CTFS and preoperative CTFS under valgus stress) and postoperative CTFS after mobile-bearing UKA.

METHODS

The study retrospectively analyzed 181 patients (224 knees) undergoing mobile-bearing UKA from September 1 2019 to December 31 2021. By using hip-to-ankle anterior-posterior (AP) standing radiographs and valgus stress force radiographs, preoperative CTFS, preoperative CTFS under valgus stress, and postoperative CTFS were measured. CTFS was defined as the distance between the tangent line to the outermost joint edge of the lateral condyle of the femur and the tangent line of the lateral tibial plateau. All patients were divided into two groups based on postoperative CTFS, group A (postoperative CTFS ≤ 5 mm) and group B (postoperative CTFS > 5 mm). The Student's t-test, one-way ANOVA together with Tukey's post hoc test, the chi-square test, the Fisher's exact test, Pearson correlation analysis, simple and multiple linear regression, and univariate and multiple logistic regression were used in the analyses.

RESULTS

The means ± standard deviations (SD) of preoperative CTFS, preoperative CTFS under valgus stress, and postoperative CTFS were 4.96 ± 1.82 mm, 3.06 ± 1.37 mm, and 3.19 ± 1.27 mm. The difference between preoperative CTFS and postoperative CTFS was statistically significant (p < 0.001). The preoperative CTFS (6.35 ± 1.34 mm) in Group B (n = 22) was significantly higher than that (4.81 ± 1.82 mm) in Group A (n = 202) (p < 0.001), so was the variable-preoperative CTFS under valgus stress (5.41 ± 1.00 mm (Group B) > 2.80 ± 1.14 mm (Group A), p < 0.001). In Pearson correlation analysis, there was a correlation between preoperative CTFS and postoperative CTFS (r = 0.493, p < 0.001), while the correlation between preoperative CTFS under valgus stress and postoperative CTFS was stronger (r = 0.842, p < 0.001). In multiple linear regression analysis, preoperative CTFS under valgus stress (β = 0.798, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.714-0.883, p < 0.001) was significantly correlated with postoperative CTFS. In multiple logistic regression analysis, preoperative CTFS under valgus stress (OR = 12.412, 95% CI = 4.757-32.384, and p < 0.001) was expressed as the risk factor of postoperative CTFS (> 5 mm).

CONCLUSION

Preoperative CTFS can be improved significantly after mobile-bearing UKA. In addition, postoperative CTFS is correlated with preoperative CTFS under valgus stress and a higher preoperative CTFS under valgus stress will increase the risk of higher postoperative CTFS (> 5 mm).

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients under the age of 60 years provides excellent clinical outcomes and 10-year implant survival: a systematic review : A study performed by the Early Osteoarthritis group of ESSKA-European Knee Associates section

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present study was to systematically review the clinical and functional outcomes following medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) in patients under the age of 60 years old.

METHODS

Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, studies between 2012 and April 2022, on patients 18-60 years old who have had a unicompartmental knee replacement evaluating patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs), were included. The Knee Society Scores (KSS) clinical score was considered the primary outcome. Pre- and post-operative range of motion (ROM), PROMs, complications and survival were recorded. Paired sample t testing was performed to compare the pre-operative with post-operative KSS.

RESULTS

Seventeen articles comprising 2083 unicompartmental arthroplasties were included. The follow-up range was between 1 and 15 years. In eligible studies, all reported outcomes were improved following UKA. The mean KSS clinical was significantly improved from 45.5 (SD: 9.6) pre-operatively to 89.4 (SD: 4.4) post-operatively (p = 0.0001). Mean implant survival ranged 86-96.5% at 10 years follow-up. There was no significant difference between mobile and fixed bearing in terms of ROM and KSS clinical. In total, 92 revisions and 7 re-operations with implant retention were reported.

CONCLUSION

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for medial osteoarthritis is a safe, reliable and effective treatment option for patients of 60 years or younger. It provides pain relief, satisfactory activity level, excellent clinical outcomes, and up to 96.5% implant survival at 10-year follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

[Research progress of failure and revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty]

Objective

To conclude the failure factors of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), and summarize the research progress of revision surgery.

Methods

The literature on UKA at home and abroad in recent years was reviewed to summarize its risk factors, treatment methods, including the evaluation of bone loss, prosthesis selection, and surgical techniques.

Results

The factors inducing UKA failure mainly include improper indications, technical errors, and others. The application of digital orthopedic technology can reduce failures caused by surgical technical errors and shorten the learning curve. There are a variety of options for revision surgery after UKA failure, including polyethylene liner replacement, revision with UKA or total knee arthroplasty, with adequate preoperative evaluation prior to implementation. The biggest challenge in revision surgery is the management and reconstruction of bone defects.

Conclusion

There is a risk of failure in UKA, which needs to be treated with caution and should be determined according to the type of failure.

Lateral osteoarthritis progression is associated with a postoperative residual tibiofemoral subluxation in Oxford UKA

PURPOSE

Lateral compartment osteoarthritis progression (LOP) is a major complication after Oxford mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (OUKA). This study aimed to identify the association between tibiofemoral subluxation (TFS) and LOP after OUKA. Patients whose TFS was uncorrectable according to preoperative stress radiographs were hypothesised to develop residual TFS even after surgery, and thought to be more likely to develop LOP.

METHODS

The study included 201 patients who underwent medial OUKA. Fifteen patients showed increases in LOP of at least two Kellgren-Lawrence grades after surgery [progression (P) group], while the others had no progression (N group, n = 186). TFS was measured on preoperative full leg weight-bearing radiographs, valgus stress radiographs and postoperative plain radiographs. Valgus stress radiographs were obtained using a firm manual valgus force with the knee flexed at 20°. Leg alignment, Oxford knee score (OKS), and revision rates were assessed.

RESULTS

The P group had significantly higher TFS values on preoperative valgus stress (6.8° ± 2.2° vs. 4.5° ± 2.0°; P < 0.001) and postoperative radiographs (6.6° ± 2.3° vs. 4.6° ± 2.9°; P < 0.001) than the N group. Patients with postoperative residual TFS and postoperative valgus alignment were more likely to have LOP, but 9 of the 15 LOP patients did not show postoperative valgus alignment. The P group had significantly poorer postoperative OKS (33.0 ± 10.2 vs. 37.4 ± 6.5, P = 0.017) and a higher rate of revision (6/15 vs 6/186; odds ratio = 19.16; 95% CI = 4.98-76.05, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

OA progression in the lateral compartment after medial OUKA might be associated with postoperative residual TFS, but does not always coexist with postoperative valgus alignment. Preoperative assessment of TFS with valgus stress could be a potential predictor of postoperative residual TFS and LOP.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Effect of tibial component overhang on survivorship in medial mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Some studies have shown that the position of the tibial component in Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with a mobile bearing will affect the clinical outcome of patients. Hence, our study aimed to investigate the relationship between the overhang distance of the tibial component and the survival of the implant.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at the same institution from 2014 to 2018 was presented. The study was divided into three groups: minor underhang group (underhang between -3 and 0 mm); minor overhang group (overhang 0-3 mm); and major overhang group (overhang ≥ 3 mm). Demographic and clinical profile characteristics of each group were compared, and survival curves of each group were also compared using Kaplan-Meier and modeled using multivariate Cox regression.

RESULTS

A total of 351 knees were included in this study with a minimum follow up of three years and a mean follow up of 4.8 ± 1.5 years. The revision rates in each group were 3.6% (minor underhang group), 2.7% (minor overhang group), and 20.9% (major overhang group) (P < 0.001). From the three groups' cumulative survival rates, the major overhang group was significantly lower than the other two groups (log rank P < 0.001). Multivariate Cox regression showed an association between the major overhang group and implant survival rate (hazard ratio = 7.515, 95% confidence interval = 2.500-22.593, P < 0.001) CONCLUSION: The risk of revision will increase if the tibial component overhangs more than 3 mm medially. Moreover, the reasons for revision are generally bearing dislocation and aseptic loosening.