Combined procedures with unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: High risk of stiffness but promising concept in selected indications

Unicompartmental knee replacement combined with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction provides comparable results to total knee replacement with no increased risk of complications

INTRODUCTION

There is controversy about the management of unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis (OA) in young, active patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) insufficiency. This study compares the subjective, radiological, and functional results of total knee replacement (TKR) vs. combined medial unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) with ACL reconstruction.

METHOD

Twelve patients suffering from medial OA and ACL deficiency with varus knee deformity and/or tibial slope <10° and absence of patellofemoral-related problems were eligible for combined UKR and ACL reconstruction (Group A). Twenty-six patients matched for age, male/female ratio and body mass index who received TKR in the same time frame were included as a control group (Group B). Oxford Knee Score (OKS), WOMAC index of osteoarthritis, Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and routine X-rays were used for assessment.

RESULTS

Ten years after surgery, the mean overall KOOS score, OKS, WOMAC index increased from preoperatively, showing a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001). In terms of KOOS, OKS, or WOMAC scores at the most recent follow-up, there was no discernible difference between the groups (p = n.s.). Three years following surgery, one female patient in group A received revision TKR due to the lateral compartment's osteoarthritis developing and the patient's pain persisting. Concerning radiographic assessment, at the most recent follow-up (average 7.9 years in group A and 8.8 years in group B), there were no radiographic indications of implant loosening or proof of pathologic radiolucent lines.

CONCLUSIONS

UKR combined with ACL restoration offers clinical and radiographic outcomes comparable to TKR 10 years following surgery with no elevated risk of complications.

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.

Partial versus total knee arthroplasty for isolated antero-medial osteoarthritis - An analysis of PROMs and satisfaction

AIM

This study aimed to compare the patient-reported functional outcomes and patient satisfaction after medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty (UKA) versus Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA), performed for anteromedial osteoarthritis (AMOA) of the knee in patients from an Indian population, at a minimum 3-year follow-up.

METHODS

This is a prospective matched cohort study (1:2 ratio). One hundred and one UKA cases were matched to 206 TKA cases by propensity score matching for age, body mass index (BMI), gender distribution, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). The primary outcome (Oxford knee score, OKS) was assessed at a 3-year follow-up, along with secondary outcomes (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC] Score, Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), Anterior Knee Pain (Kujala) score, patient satisfaction, and revision rate at the final follow-up).

RESULTS

The UKA group was superior to the TKA group in patient-reported functional outcomes based on the OKS (p = 0.004). Using the FJS score, UKA was more likely to be a forgotten joint compared to TKA (p < 0.001). However, differences in the OKS and FJS did not meet the reported minimal clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds. Quality of life (EuroQol-5D VAS scale) was found to be significantly higher in the UKA group (p < 0.001). Patients in the UKA group were more likely to be very satisfied (75.2%) versus the TKA group (62.1%, p = 0.023).

CONCLUSION

For AMOA, UKA was associated with improved patient satisfaction compared to TKA. Although patient-reported outcome measures were statistically in favour of UKA over TKA, the differences were not clinically significant. Multicenter and randomized studies comparing the two procedures are warranted.

EVIDENCE

Level-II Therapeutic.