High Rate of Early Revision After Custom-Made Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty

Optimal intersurface stability for unicompartmental femoral component design with two pegs placed on the distal resection surface: 5 mm peg length increment and 10° peg inclination

PURPOSE

The present study aimed to identify the optimal design of the unicompartmental femoral component through parameter analysis and stability evaluation.

METHODS

A finite element (FE) analysis was applied to analyse and adjust the parameter combinations of the anterior tilt angle of the posterior condyle resection surface, the position of the peg, the length of the peg and the inclination angle of the peg, resulting in 10 different FE models. Setting three knee flexion angles of 8.4° (maximum load state during walking), 40° (maximum load state during stair climbing) and 90° (maximum load state during squatting exercise), quantitatively analysing the micromotion values of the bone-prosthesis interface and defining a weighted scoring formula to evaluate the stability of different FE models. The validity of the FE analysis was verified using the Digital Image Correlation (DIC) device.

RESULTS

The errors between the FE analysis and the DIC test at three flexion angles were 5.6%, 1.7% and 11.1%. The 10 different femoral component design models were measured separately. The FE analysis demonstrated that the design with a 0° anterior tilt angle of the posterior condyle resection surface, both pegs placed on the distal resection surface, lengthened 5 mm pegs and a 10° peg inclination angle provided the best stability.

CONCLUSION

The current study proposed a method for evaluating the stability of the femoral component design. The optimal intersurface stability design of the unicompartmental femoral component was achieved with two pegs placed on the distal resection surface, a 5-mm peg length increment and a 10° peg inclination. These results might provide a reference for the selection of unicompartmental femoral components in clinical practice and therefore improve the survival rate of future unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Trends in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty among 138 international experienced arthroplasty knee surgeons

Purpose

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is an established option for treating isolated unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis (OA), but controversies still exist about patient selection, indications, perioperative management and alignment goals. This survey was designed to understand the current trends of experienced arthroplasty knee surgeons performing UKA.

Methods

An online questionnaire was created with SurveyMonkey® to assess global tendencies in the utilization of UKA. A link to the survey was shared with all ESSKA (European Society for Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy) members. The questionnaire consisted of free and multiple-choice questions and was divided into four sections: demographic information, the surgical activity of the respondents, indications for surgery and postoperative alignment goals.

Results

A total of 138 ESSKA members from 34 different countries completed the survey. A total of 81 % of the responders performed fewer than 50 UKAs per year; 53 % of UKAs represented less than 20 % of their knee replacements; 71 % used mainly or only fixed-bearing implants; 81 % performed UKA in a shorter time compared to TKA; and 61 % and 72 % were interested in custom-made UKA and robotics, respectively. Thirty-six percent considered a minimum postoperative alignment of 0° for medial UKA, and 32 % considered 10° as the maximum valgus deformity for lateral UKA. Fifty-five percent had no minimum age cut-off, 47 % had no BMI cut-off, and 57 % believed TKA was better than UKA in knees with concomitant high-grade patellofemoral OA. Approximately 50 % of the surgeons desired a coronal alignment that was the same as the predegeneration alignment.

Conclusion

A high level of agreement was reached regarding the following: preference for fixed-bearing UKAs, lower surgical time for UKA compared to TKA, interest in custom-made and robotic UKAs, no age and weight cut-off, TKA preferred in the presence of patellofemoral OA, and a final alignment goal of the predegenerative state both for medial and lateral. There was no agreement regarding length of stay, rehabilitation protocol, preoperative varus and valgus cut-off values, and treatment in cases of absence of anterior cruciate ligament or previous osteotomy.

Patient Specific Instruments and Patient Individual Implants—A Narrative Review

Joint arthroplasties are one of the most frequently performed standard operations worldwide. Patient individual instruments and patient individual implants represent an innovation that must prove its usefulness in further studies. However, promising results are emerging. Those implants seem to be a benefit especially in revision situations. Most experience is available in the field of knee and hip arthroplasty. Patient-specific instruments for the shoulder and upper ankle are much less common. Patient individual implants combine individual cutting blocks and implants, while patient individual instruments solely use individual cutting blocks in combination with off-the-shelf implants. This review summarizes the current data regarding the implantation of individual implants and the use of individual instruments.

Insufficient evidence to confirm benefits of custom partial knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesise the available literature and critically appraise current evidence on the functional and radiographic outcomes as well as reoperation and revision rates of custom partial knee arthroplasty, i.e., unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), bicompartmental knee arthroplasty (BKA), and patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This systematic review was performed in accordance with the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and a protocol was registered with Prospero. On 25 May 2021, two authors independently searched and screened Level I-IV studies that reported on outcomes of custom partial knee arthroplasty using the databases of MEDLINE^®, EMBASE^®, and the Cochrane Library without restriction on date of publication. Findings from eligible articles were synthesised and tabulated, and quality assessments were done according to the guidelines of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Checklists.

RESULTS

Fifteen articles were eligible for data extraction, of which two comparative and four case series were on custom UKA (follow-up, 0-9 months), one comparative and five case series on custom BKA (follow-up, 0.25-72 months), and three case series on custom PFA (follow-up, 2-119 months). Three studies on custom UKA reported mean Knee Society Score (KSS) Knee of 86-94 and mean KSS Function of 94-95, and two studies on custom BKA reported mean KSS Knee of 90-94 and KSS function of 81, whereas one study on custom PFA reported KSS Knee of 91 and KSS Function of 89. Custom implants tended to have less bone-implant mismatch compared to off the shelf (OTS) implants. Revision rates were 3-25% for custom UKA (at 0-109 months), 3-5% for custom BKA (at 12-72 months), and 0-14% for custom PFA (at 2-119 months).

CONCLUSION

Due to the small number of comparative studies and lack of consistency in reported outcomes, it remains difficult to ascertain the benefits of custom partial knee arthroplasty. Anecdotal evidence suggests that, compared to OTS implants, custom implants result in less bone-implant mismatch and that 78-91% of patients are either satisfied or very satisfied after custom partial knee arthroplasty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Patient Satisfaction, Functional Outcomes, and Implant Survivorship in Patients Undergoing Customized Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

Customized unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (C-UKA) utilizes implants manufactured on an individual patient basis, derived from pre-operative computed tomography images in an effort to more closely approximate the natural anatomy of the knee. The outcomes from 349 medial and lateral fixed-bearing C-UKA were reviewed. Implant survivorship analysis was conducted via retrospective chart review, and follow-up analysis was conducted via a single postoperative phone call or email. The rate of follow-up was 69% (242 knees). The average age at surgery was 71.1 years and the average body mass index was 28.8 kg/m2. Seven revision arthroplasties (2.1%) had knowingly been performed at an average of 1.9 years postoperatively (range: 0.1-3.9 years), resulting in an implant survivorship of 97.9% at an average follow-up of 4.2 years (range: 0.1-8.7) and 97.9% at an average of 4.8 years (range: 2.0-8.7) when knees with less than two years of follow-up were excluded. The reasons for revision were implant loosening (one knee), infection (two knees), progression of osteoarthritis (two knees), and unknown reasons (two knees). The average KOOS, JR. interval score was 84 (SD: 14.4). Of those able to be contacted for follow-up analysis, 67% were "very satisfied," 26% were "satisfied," 4% were "neutral," 2% were "dissatisfied," and 1% were "very dissatisfied." When asked if the knee felt "natural," 60% responded with "always," 35% responded with "sometimes," and 5% responded with "never." After analyzing a large cohort of C-UKA, we found favorable rates of survivorship, satisfaction, and patient-reported functional outcomes.

[New technologies (robotics, "custom-made") for unicondylar knee arthroplasty-contra]

BACKGROUND

Numerous long-term results for both medial and lateral unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) demonstrate that UKA is a reliable and successful treatment for isolated anteromedial or lateral osteoarthritis of the knee when the correct indications are used. The relationship between operation volume and implant performance has clearly been established from recent studies and registry data. The use of novel technologies allows for an improvement in the accuracy of implant positioning with fewer outliers. However, evidence-based target zones for the positioning of available implants have not been sufficiently established.

INDIVIDUAL ENDOPROSTHETICS

Current data does not support the routine use of patient-specific instruments or custom-made implants.

ROBOTICS

Robot-assisted procedures must be interpreted as a very promising approach for the future. So far, there is insufficient evidence that robotically assisted surgical techniques improve implant performance or lead to better functional results from the patient's point of view.

Awareness of performance on outcomes after total hip and knee arthroplasty among Dutch orthopedic surgeons: how to improve feedback from arthroplasty registries

Background and purpose - The Netherlands Registry of Orthopedic Implants (LROI) uses audit and feedback (A&F) as the strategy to improve performance outcomes after total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA). Effectiveness of A&F depends on awareness of below-average performance to initiate improvement activities. We explored the awareness of Dutch orthopedic surgeons regarding their performance on outcomes after THA/TKA and factors associated with this awareness.Methods - An anonymous questionnaire was sent to all 445 eligible Dutch orthopedic surgeons performing THA/TKA. To assess awareness on own surgeon-group performance, they were asked whether their 1-year THA/TKA revision rates over the past 2 years were below average (negative outlier), average (non-outlier), above average (positive outlier) in the funnel plot on the LROI dashboard, or did not know. Associations were determined with (1) dashboard login at least once a year (yes/no); (2) correct funnel-plot interpretation (yes/no) and; (3) recall of their 1-year THA/TKA revision rate (yes/no).Results - 44% of respondents started the questionnaire, 158 THA and 156 TKA surgeons. 55% of THA surgeons and 55% of TKA surgeons were aware of their performance. Surgeons aware of their performance more often logged in on the LROI dashboard, more often interpreted funnel plots correctly, and more often recalled their revision rate. 38% of THA and 26% of TKA surgeons scored "good" on all 3 outcomes.Interpretation - Only half of the orthopedic surgeons were aware of their performance status regarding outcomes after THA/TKA. This suggests that to increase awareness, orthopedic surgeons need to be actively motivated to look at the dashboard more frequently and educated on interpretation of funnel plots for audit and feedback to be effective.

Biomechanical and Clinical Effect of Patient-Specific or Customized Knee Implants: A Review

(1) Background: Although knee arthroplasty or knee replacement is already an effective clinical treatment, it continues to undergo clinical and biomechanical improvements. For an increasing number of conditions, prosthesis based on an individual patient's anatomy is a promising treatment. The aims of this review were to evaluate the clinical and biomechanical efficacy of patient-specific knee prosthesis, explore its future direction, and summarize any published comparative studies. (2) Methods: We searched the PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus databases for articles published prior to February 1, 2020, with the keywords "customized knee prosthesis" and "patient-specific knee prosthesis". We excluded patient-specific instrument techniques. (3) Results: Fifty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria. In general, clinical improvement was greater with a patient-specific knee prosthesis than with a conventional knee prosthesis. In addition, patient-specific prosthesis showed improved biomechanical effect than conventional prosthesis. However, in one study, patient-specific unicompartmental knee arthroplasty showed a relatively high rate of aseptic loosening, particularly femoral component loosening, in the short- to medium-term follow-up. (4) Conclusions: A patient-specific prosthesis provides a more accurate resection and fit of components, yields significant postoperative improvements, and exhibits a high level of patient satisfaction over the short to medium term compared with a conventional prosthesis. However, the tibial insert design of the current patient-specific knee prosthesis does not follow the tibial plateau curvature.