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

Advantages and limitations of mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: an overview of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Interest in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has recently grown. Mobile bearing UKA, in which the bearing is not fixed but rather perfectly conforms with femoral and tibial components and moves completely passively between the femoral and tibial implant, has now been used for approximately half a century.

AREAS COVERED

Alongside the recognized advantages of UKA, the mobile-bearing variant benefits from an extremely low rate of polyethylene wear and tolerable minor malalignment. Revision rates for UKA have been reported to exceed those of total knee arthroplasty, but long-term survival rates and outcomes from mobile-bearing UKA have been found to be satisfactory. In addition to the lateral osteoarthritis and loosening, which are main complications of UKA, bearing dislocation is a specific complication of mobile bearing UKA. Fractures and valgus subsidence are more prevalent than in the cementless UKA. While these continue to be features to be addressed, they have been partially solved.

EXPERT OPINION

Given the manifold benefits of UKA, its application could be extended to a larger patient population. Successful outcomes rely on careful patient selection and the surgeon's extensive familiarity with the procedure. Looking ahead, the incorporation of robotic surgery, already a feature of some fixed-bearing UKAs, might shape the future trajectory of mobile-bearing UKA.

Patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction after revisions of medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties for unexplained pain vs aseptic loosening

PURPOSE

Does patients revised for unexplained pain after mUKA present the same PROM and satisfaction scores 1-3 years after revision as patients revised for aseptic loosening?".

METHODS

104 patients undergoing revision of mUKA's for the indications unexplained pain and aseptic loosening were included in the period January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2020. from the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register. 52 patients were revised for unexplained pain and 52 for aseptic loosening. Patient demographics did not differ between the two groups. PROMs [Oxford Knee Score (OKS), EQ-5D-5L, Forgotten Joint Score (FJS)] and questions about satisfaction with the surgery were sent to digitally secured mailboxes. Pearson's Chi-square test and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test were used to test for statistical differences between groups.

RESULTS

The median OKS 1-3 years after revision was 26 (IQR 22) for unexplained pain vs 34 (IQR 12) for aseptic loosening, p = 0.033. The median EQ-5D-5L Index after revision was 0.7 (IQR 0.6) for unexplained vs 0.8 (IQR 0.1) for aseptic loosening, p = 0.014. The median FJS after revision was 48 (IQR 10) for unexplained pain vs 52 (IQR 14) for aseptic loosening, p = 0.1. The mean satisfaction with the surgery on a 0-100 scale (100 = not satisfied; 0 = very satisfied) was 55 (IQR 60) for unexplained pain vs 50 (IQR 67) for aseptic loosening, p = 0.087, and patients revised for unexplained pain were less likely to find their knee problem importantly improved (p = 0.032).

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing revision of mUKAs for unexplained pain presented poor postoperative PROM scores, and PROM scores were worse compared to those of patients revised for aseptic loosening. Patients revised for unexplained pain were less likely to find their knee problem importantly improved. This study support the evidence against revisions for unexplained pain.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Intraoperative sensor technology quantifies inter-prosthesis pressure for predicting lower limb alignment after Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Purpose: The aim of this study is to quantify inter-prosthetic pressures at different knee angles in Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (OUKA) and its correlation with postoperative lower limb alignment. Methods: This study included 101 patients (122 knees) who underwent OUKA from March 2022 to July 2022. The previously designed matrix flexible force sensor was used to measure the inter-prosthesis pressure of different knee joint angles during the UKA operation, and the force variation trend and gap balance difference were obtained. The correlation between inter-prosthesis pressure and postoperative lower limb alignment index including hip-knee-ankle angle (HKAA) and posterior tibial slope (PTS) was analyzed. The effect of PTS change (ΔPTS) on the inter-prosthesis pressure and the range of motion (ROM) of the knee joint was analyzed. Radiographic and short-term clinical outcomes of included patients were assessed. Results: The inter-prosthesis pressure of the different knee joint angles during the operation was not consistent. The mean inter-prosthesis pressure and gap balance difference were 73.68.28 ± 41.65N and 36.48 ± 20.58N. The inter-prosthesis pressure at 0° and 20° was positively correlated with postoperative HKAA (p < 0.001). ΔPTS was positively correlated with the pressure at the end of knee extension and negatively correlated with the pressure at the end of knee flexion (p < 0.001). The HKAA, ROM, degree of fixed knee flexion deformity, and knee society score of the included patients were significantly improved compared with those before the operation (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The inter-prosthesis pressure measured at the knee extension position can predict postoperative HKAA to some degree. Changes in PTS will affect the inter-prosthesis pressure at the end of flexion and end of knee extension, but this change is not related to the range of motion of the knee joint.

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.

Bearing Separation From the Lateral Wall of the Tibial Component Is a Risk of Anterior Dislocation of the Mobile Bearing in Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Bearing dislocation is a serious complication after Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Bearing separation from the lateral wall can cause it to spin (90° horizontal rotation) and eventually dislocate because there is just a 2 mm difference in height in both the lateral and medial sides from the bottom of the bearing, compared with the anterior (5 mm) and posterior (3 mm) sides. The details of this problem have not been previously examined.

METHODS

Twenty-one dislocations in 12 patients were retrospectively analyzed. Bearing separation was defined as the bearing position being sufficiently distant from the lateral wall of the tibial component to allow spinning. We analyzed the incidence of separation, the direction and the recurrence of the dislocations, and their causes and treatments.

RESULTS

Five of the 12 patients had separation. Of the total of 21 dislocations, 11 occurred in cases of separation (52%). Seven of 11 anterior dislocations were found to have separation, whereas nine of 13 posterior dislocations occurred without separation (P = .0237). Three of 5 patients with separation had recurrence of dislocation, and eventually 2 underwent revision to fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

CONCLUSION

Bearing separation from the lateral wall of the tibial component can cause bearing dislocation, especially in an anterior direction. To prevent separation, the wall-bearing distance should be evaluated before the keel slot preparation, with manipulation as necessary. Conversely, posterior dislocation was predominant in our nonseparation cases.