Comparison of the clinical outcomes of revision of failed UKAs to TKAs with primary TKAs: A systematic review and meta-analysis

[Functional outcomes and return to sports, work, and daily activities after revision UKA compared to primary UKA and TKA]

BACKGROUND

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), in addition to total knee arthroplasty (TKA), has been shown to be effective in the surgical treatment of knee osteoarthritis with appropriate patient selection. In clinical studies, it has demonstrated superior functional results with lower complication rates. In clinical practice, these advantages must be weighed against the disadvantage of an increased revision rate, especially in younger patients with sports and work activities.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the functional outcome as well as the time to return to daily activities, work, and sports after revision of UKA to TKA with those of primary UKA and primary TKA using a matched-pair analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was based on a matched-pair analysis at two defined time points, always comparing 28 patients who underwent either revision of a UKA to a TKA, primary UKA, or primary TKA. Patients completed the Oxford Knee Score, UCLA score, Knee Society score, and WOMAC score during standardized follow-up. In addition, postoperative patient satisfaction and return to activities of daily living, work, and sports were recorded in a standardized manner, and a clinical examination was performed.

RESULTS

The four functional scores studied showed a common trend in favor of UKA, followed by primary TKA and revision TKA. The differences between converted UKA and primary TKA were not significant. However, at 3.2 years after the last surgery, the results of the converted UKA were significantly lower than those of the primary UKA. Return to work and sports tended to occur the earliest after UKA, followed by TKA and the revision group. All groups showed a tendency to engage in low-impact sports.

CONCLUSION

The functional results of revised UKA were significantly inferior to those of primary UKA based on a 3-year follow-up. Return to work, sports, and activities of daily living tended to take longer after revision than after primary implantation of either a UKA or a TKA.

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revised to total knee arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis of matched studies

BACKGROUND

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) offers a less invasive alternative to total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but is accompanied by a high revision risk. The aim of our study was to perform a meta-analysis comparing outcomes of UKA revised to TKA versus primary TKA, to assess if UKA is an effective treatment option, despite its potential need for revision.

METHODS

Studies comparing matched cohorts of patients with UKA revised to TKA versus primary TKA were identified via the PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, and Scopus databases. The following outcome measures were compared between treatment modalities: postoperative reoperation or revision, total complications, range of motion, patient-reported outcome measures, and length of stay.

RESULTS

Ten studies were included with 1,070 patients: 410 UKA to TKA and 660 primary TKA. At an average follow-up of 5.6 years in the UKA to TKA cohort and 5.7 years in the primary TKA cohort, there were no significant difference in risk of revision (p = 0.81), total complications (p = 0.54), range of motion (p = 0.09), or length of stay (p = 0.31). Both objective and functional Knee Society Score were significantly higher in patients with primary TKA (p < 0.01). However, there was no difference in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) or pain scores (p = 0.13 and p = 0.21, respectively).

CONCLUSION

UKA revised to TKA produced comparable clinical and patient-reported outcomes to a primary TKA. UKA may be an effective treatment option in unicompartmental arthritis that would allow for improved functionality and satisfaction without the concern of outcomes deteriorating in patients where a revision becomes necessary.

Surgical interventions for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: a network meta-analysis of randomized control trials

BACKGROUND

Multiple surgical interventions exist for the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, but the surgeon and patient may often have difficulty deciding which interventions are the best option.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared complications, revisions, reoperations, and functional outcomes among TKA (total knee arthroplasty), UKA (unicompartmental knee arthroplasty), HTO (high tibial osteotomy), BCA (bicompartmental knee arthroplasty), BIU (bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty), and KJD (knee joint distraction). The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were reviewed for all studies comparing two or more surgical interventions. Direct-comparison meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) were performed to combine direct and indirect evidence. The risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs.

RESULTS

This NMA and systematic review included 21 studies (17 RCTs), with a total of 1749 patients. The overall risk-of-bias assessment of the RCTs revealed that 7 studies had low risk, 5 had some concerns, and 9 had high risk. SUCRA (the surface under the cumulative ranking curve) rankings revealed that KJD had the greatest risk of appearing postoperative complications, revisions, and reoperations, and UKA or TKA had the lowest risk. The majority of comparisons among various treatments showed no difference for functional outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Each surgical intervention is noninferior to other treatments in functional outcomes, but UKA and TKA are better options to treat OA according to SUCRA rankings by comparing complications, revisions, and reoperations. KJD is an imperfect option for treating OA. Other treatments should be carefully considered for each patient in accordance with their actual conditions. However, this conclusion is limited by the selection of reviewed publications and individual variation of surgical indications for patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered with Research Registry (reviewregistry1395).

[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.

The compartmental approach to revision of partial knee arthroplasty results in nearer-normal gait and improved patient reported outcomes compared to total knee arthroplasty

PURPOSE

This study investigated the gait and patient reported outcome measures of subjects converted from a partial knee arthroplasty to combined partial knee arthroplasty, using a compartmental approach. Healthy subjects and primary total knee arthroplasty patients were used as control groups.

METHODS

Twenty-three patients converted from partial to combined partial knee arthroplasty were measured on the instrumented treadmill at top walking speeds, using standard gait metrics. Data were compared to healthy controls (n = 22) and primary posterior cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty subjects (n = 23) where surgery were performed for one or two-compartment osteoarthritis. Groups were matched for age, sex and body mass index. At the time of gait analysis, combined partial knee arthroplasty subjects were median 17 months post-revision surgery (range 4-81 months) while the total knee arthroplasty group was median 16 months post-surgery (range 6-150 months). Oxford Knee Scores and EuroQol-5D 5L scores were recorded at the time of treadmill assessment, and results analysed by question and domain.

RESULTS

Subjects revised from partial to combined partial knee arthroplasty walked 16% faster than total knee arthroplasty (mean top walking speed 6.4 ± 0.8 km/h, vs. 5.5 ± 0.7 km/h p = 0.003), demonstrating nearer-normal weight-acceptance rate (p < 0.001), maximum weight-acceptance force (p < 0.006), mid-stance force (p < 0.03), contact time (p < 0.02), double support time (p < 0.009), step length (p = 0.003) and stride length (p = 0.051) compared to primary total knee arthroplasty. Combined partial knee arthroplasty subjects had a median Oxford Knee Score of 43 (interquartile range 39-47) vs. 38 (interquartile range 32-41, p < 0.02) and reported a median EQ-5D 0.94 (interquartile range 0.87-1.0) vs. 0.84 (interquartile range 0.80-0.89, p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

This study finds that a compartmental approach to native compartment degeneration following partial knee arthroplasty results in nearer-normal gait and improved patient satisfaction compared to total knee arthroplasty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Costs of unicompartmental compared with total knee arthroplasty : a matched cohort study over ten years

AIMS

The aim of this study was to compare ten-year longitudinal healthcare costs and revision rates for patients undergoing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

METHODS

The Humana database was used to compare 2,383 patients undergoing UKA between 2007 and 2009, who were matched 1:1 from a cohort of 63,036 patients undergoing primary TKA based on age, sex, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index. Medical and surgical complications were tracked longitudinally for one year following surgery. Rates of revision surgery and cumulative mean healthcare costs were recorded for this period of time and compared between the cohorts.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing TKA had significantly higher rates of manipulation under anaesthesia (3.9% vs 0.9%; p < 0.001), deep vein thrombosis (5.0% vs 3.1%; p < 0.001), pulmonary embolism (1.5% vs 0.8%; p = 0.001), and renal failure (4.2% vs 2.2%; p < 0.001). Revision rates, however, were significantly higher for UKA at five years (6.0% vs 4.2%; p = 0.007) and ten years postoperatively (6.5% vs 4.4%; p = 0.002). Longitudinal-related healthcare costs for patients undergoing TKA were greater than for those undergoing UKA at one year ($24,771 vs $22,071; p < 0.001) and five years following surgery ($26,549 vs $25,730; p < 0.001); however, the mean costs of TKA were comparable to UKA at ten years ($26,877 vs $26,891; p = 0.425).

CONCLUSION

Despite higher revision rates, patients undergoing UKA had lower mean healthcare costs than those undergoing TKA up to ten years following the procedure, at which time costs were comparable. In the era of value-based care, surgeons and policymakers should be aware of the costs involved with these procedures. UKA was associated with fewer complications at one year postoperatively but higher revision rates at five and ten years. While UKA was significantly less costly than TKA at one and five years, costs at ten years were comparable with a mean difference of only $14. Lowering the risk of revision surgery should be targeted as a source of cost savings for both UKA and TKA as the mean related healthcare costs were 2.5-fold higher in patients requiring revision surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):23-31.

The extensor efficiency of unicompartmental, bicompartmental, and total knee arthroplasty

Aims

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and bicompartmental knee arthroplasty (BCA) have been associated with improved functional outcomes compared to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in suitable patients, although the reason is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to measure how the different arthroplasties affect knee extensor function.

Methods

Extensor function was measured for 16 cadaveric knees and then retested following the different arthroplasties. Eight knees underwent medial UKA then BCA, then posterior-cruciate retaining TKA, and eight underwent the lateral equivalents then TKA. Extensor efficiency was calculated for ranges of knee flexion associated with common activities of daily living. Data were analyzed with repeated measures analysis of variance (α = 0.05).

Results

Compared to native, there were no reductions in either extension moment or efficiency following UKA. Conversion to BCA resulted in a small decrease in extension moment between 70° and 90° flexion (p < 0.05), but when examined in the context of daily activity ranges of flexion, extensor efficiency was largely unaffected. Following TKA, large decreases in extension moment were measured at low knee flexion angles (p < 0.05), resulting in 12% to 43% reductions in extensor efficiency for the daily activity ranges.

Conclusion

This cadaveric study found that TKA resulted in inferior extensor function compared to UKA and BCA. This may, in part, help explain the reported differences in function and satisfaction differences between partial and total knee arthroplasty.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(1):1–9.

Management of aseptic failure of the mobile-bearing Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) accounts for 9.1% of primary knee arthroplasties (KAs) in the UK. However, wider uptake is limited by higher revision rates compared with total knee arthroplasties (TKA) and concerns over subsequent poor function. The aim of this study was to understand the revision strategies and clinical outcomes for aseptic, failed UKAs at a high-volume centre.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, single-centre cohort study of 48 patients (31 female, 17 male) with 52 revision UKAs from 2006 to 2018. Median time to revision was 67 (range 4-180) months. Indications for revision were progression of osteoarthritis (n = 31 knees, 59.6%), unexplained pain (n = 10 knees, 19.2%), aseptic loosening (n = 6 knees, 11.5%), medial collateral ligament incompetence (n = 3 knees, 5.8%) and recurrent bearing dislocation (n = 2 knees, 3.8%). Technical details of surgery, complications and functional outcome were recorded.

RESULTS

Failed UKAs were revised to primary TKAs (n = 29 knees, 55.8%), revision TKAs (n = 9 knees, 17.3%), bicompartmental KAs (n = 11 knees, 21.2%), or unicompartmental-to-unicompartmental KAs (n = 3 knees, 5.8%). Median follow up was 81 (range 24-164) months. Four patients (7.7%) died from unrelated causes. No re-revisions were identified. Surgical complications required re-operation in five knees (9.6%). Median Oxford Knee Score at latest follow up was 38 (range 9-48) points and median EQ5D3L index 0.707 (range -0.247 to 1.000).

CONCLUSIONS

Aseptic, revision UKA at a high-volume centre had good clinical outcomes. Bicompartmental KA demonstrated excellent function and should be considered an alternative to TKA for progression of osteoarthritis for appropriately trained surgeons.

Top ten research priorities for problematic knee arthroplasty

AIMS

The James Lind Alliance aims to bring patients, carers, and clinicians together to identify uncertainties regarding care. A Priority Setting Partnership was established by the British Association for Surgery of the Knee in conjunction with the James Lind Alliance to identify research priorities related to the assessment, management, and rehabilitation of patients with persistent symptoms after knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

The project was conducted using the James Lind Alliance protocol. A steering group was convened including patients, surgeons, anaesthetists, nurses, physiotherapists, and researchers. Partner organizations were recruited. A survey was conducted on a national scale through which patients, carers, and healthcare professionals submitted key unanswered questions relating to problematic knee arthroplasties. These were analyzed, aggregated, and synthesized into summary questions and the relevant evidence was checked. After confirming that these were not answered in the current literature, 32 questions were taken forward to an interim prioritization survey. Data from this survey informed a shortlist taken to a final consensus meeting.

RESULTS

A total of 769 questions were received during the initial survey with national reach across the UK. These were refined into 32 unique questions by an independent information specialist. The interim prioritization survey was completed by 201 respondents and 25 questions were taken to a final consensus group meeting between patients, carers, and healthcare professionals. Consensus was reached for ranking the top ten questions for publication and dissemination.

CONCLUSIONS

The top ten research priorities focused on pain, infection, stiffness, health service configuration, surgical and non-surgical management strategies, and outcome measures. This list will guide funders and help focus research efforts within the knee arthroplasty community. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1176-1182.

Unicondylar knee arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty in adults with isolated medial osteoarthritis: A matched study protocol

BACKGROUND

The choice between unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is likely to have long-term implications for patient-reported health outcomes. However, high-quality studies that compare the outcomes of TKA and UKA and their effects are still lacking in the literature. Thus, the aim of the present study was to compare the UKA and TKA techniques with regard to functional outcomes and perioperative complications in patients who had isolated medial osteoarthritis.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, single-center, matched-controlled study performed with approval of our hospital (Kunshan hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine affiliated to Nanjing University of Traditional Chinese Medicine), with the ethics number KZY2020-37. To reduce the effect of selection bias and potential confounding in this observational study, a 1:1 matching algorithm was applied. The groups were split by sex, age to within 6 years, and body mass index within 5 kg/m. Thus, we retrospectively reviewed the records of 240 consecutively enrolled patients who underwent UKA and 240 patients who underwent TKA from January 2013 to June 2015 from the database of our institution. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects participating in the trial. Clinical outcomes included range of motion, Short Form 12 score, new Knee Society Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, and the complications. The outcome measures were evaluated by a physiotherapist and were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 months and 2 years. The mean follow-up time was 3 years.

CONCLUSION

We hypothesized that there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of postoperative outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Our study was registered in Research Registry (researchregistry5828).