J Korean Orthop Assoc.  2018 Dec;53(6):498-504. 10.4055/jkoa.2018.53.6.498.

Mid-Term Results of Fixed Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up

• Oh JH
• Joo IH
• Kong DY
• Choi CH

• KMID: 2430056
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4055/jkoa.2018.53.6.498

Abstract

PURPOSE
To evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes, and the complications of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) using a fixed bearing prosthesis after 5-year follow-up.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Twenty-six knees (25 patients) that underwent fixed bearing UKA between May 2003 and August 2011 were included. The subjects were 3 males (3 knees) and 22 females (23 knees), and the average age was 63.5 years. The preoperative diagnosis was osteoarthritis (23 knees) and osteonecrosis (3 knees). The mean follow-up duration was 67 months (from 60 to 149 months). The clinical evaluation included pre- and postoperative American knee society knee and function score, and range of motion. The radiology evaluation included standing antero-posterior, lateral view, and fluoroscopic film to analyze the postoperative alignment and osteolysis.
RESULTS
The mean American Knee Society knee score and function score were improved from 42.0 and 57.5 to 87.9 and 85.0, respectively (p < 0.001). The mean preoperative and postoperative range of motion was 132.9° and 132.5°, respectively. The mean femorotibial angle were varus 0.5° preoperatively and valgus 2.2° postoperatively. A radiolucent line was observed in 2 knees; one knee had a stable implant, while in the other knee, patellofemoral arthritis was identified during UKA. Diffuse pain of the knee joint with tenderness of the medial joint line was identified at the follow-up, so conversion to total knee arthroplasty was recommended. No other complications, such as osteolysis, infections, postoperative stiffness, and dislocation, were encountered.
CONCLUSION
The midterm results of fixed bearing UKA were clinically and radiologically satisfactory.

Keyword

knee; fixed bearing; unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

MeSH Terms

Arthritis
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee*
Diagnosis
Dislocations
Female
Follow-Up Studies*
Humans
Joints
Knee
Knee Joint
Male
Osteoarthritis
Osteolysis
Osteonecrosis
Prostheses and Implants
Range of Motion, Articular

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 (A) Preoperative radiographs of a 54-year-old woman showing medial osteoarthritis of the right knee. (B) Postoperative radiographs taken 6 years after Miller-Galante (Zimmer) unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

• 

  Figure 2 (A) Antero-posterior radiograph of the right knee of a 76-year old female who underwent unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using Miller-Galante (Zimmer) implants postoperatively 2 weeks. (B) Postoperative radiograph taken 7 years after Miller-Galante unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. A radiolucent line was observed in the medial tibia condyle (arrow).

Reference

1. Brown NM, Sheth NP, Davis K, et al. Total knee arthroplasty has higher postoperative morbidity than unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a multicenter analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2012; 27:86–90.

2. Hopper GP, Leach WJ. Participation in sporting activities following knee replacement: total versus unicompartmental. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008; 16:973–979.

3. Berger RA, Meneghini RM, Jacobs JJ, et al. Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum of ten years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87:999–1006.

4. Price A, Waite J, Svard U. Long-term clinical results of the medial Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005; (435):171–180.

5. Emerson RH Jr, Hansborough T, Reitman RD, Rosenfeldt W, Higgins LL. Comparison of a mobile with a fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee implant. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002; (404):62–70.

6. Li MG, Yao F, Joss B, Ioppolo J, Nivbrant B, Wood D. Mobile vs. fixed bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a randomized study on short term clinical outcomes and knee kinematics. Knee. 2006; 13:365–370.

7. Parratte S, Pauly V, Aubaniac JM, Argenson JN. No long-term difference between fixed and mobile medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012; 470:61–68.

8. Ko YB, Gujarathi MR, Oh KJ. Outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of comparative studies between fixed and mobile bearings focusing on complications. Knee Surg Relat Res. 2015; 27:141–148.

9. Gleeson RE, Evans R, Ackroyd CE, Webb J, Newman JH. Fixed or mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement? A comparative cohort study. Knee. 2004; 11:379–384.

10. Confalonieri N, Manzotti A, Pullen C. Comparison of a mobile with a fixed tibial bearing unicompartimental knee prosthesis: a prospective randomized trial using a dedicated outcome score. Knee. 2004; 11:357–362.

11. Kim KT, Lee S, Kim JH, Hong SW, Jung WS, Shin WS. The survivorship and clinical results of minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at 10-year follow-up. Clin Orthop Surg. 2015; 7:199–206.

12. Choy WS, Kim KJ, Lee SK, Yang DS, Lee NK. Mid-term results of oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Surg. 2011; 3:178–183.

13. Peersman G, Stuyts B, Vandenlangenbergh T, Cartier P, Fennema P. Fixed- versus mobile-bearing UKA: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015; 23:3296–3305.

14. Lisowski LA, van den Bekerom MP, Pilot P, van Dijk CN, Lisowski AE. Oxford Phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: medium-term results of a minimally invasive surgical procedure. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011; 19:277–284.

15. Pandit H, Hamilton TW, Jenkins C, Mellon SJ, Dodd CA, Murray DW. The clinical outcome of minimally invasive Phase 3 Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a 15-year follow-up of 1000 UKAs. Bone Joint J. 2015; 97:1493–1500.

16. Gonzalez MH, Mekhail AO. The failed total knee arthroplasty: evaluation and etiology. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2004; 12:436–446.

17. Argenson JN, Chevrol-Benkeddache Y, Aubaniac JM. Modern unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cement: a three to ten-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002; 84:2235–2239.

18. Koskinen E, Paavolainen P, Eskelinen A, Pulkkinen P, Remes V. Unicondylar knee replacement for primary osteoarthritis: a prospective follow-up study of 1,819 patients from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop. 2007; 78:128–135.

19. Choy WS, Lee KW, Kim HY, Kim KJ, Chun YS, Yang DS. Mobile bearing medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients whose lifestyles involve high degrees of knee flexion: a 10-14year follow-up study. Knee. 2017; 24:829–836.

20. Thambyah A, Fernandez J. Squatting-related tibiofemoral shear reaction forces and a biomechanical rationale for femoral component loosening. ScientificWorldJournal. 2014; 2014:785175.

21. Goodfellow J, O'Connor J, Dodd C. Unicompartmental arthroplasty with the Oxford knee. Oxford: Oxford University Press;2006.

22. Vasso M, Del Regno C, D'Amelio A, Viggiano D, Corona K, Schiavone Panni A. Minor varus alignment provides better results than neutral alignment in medial UKA. Knee. 2015; 22:117–121.

23. Voss F, Sheinkop MB, Galante JO, Barden RM, Rosenberg AG. Miller-Galante unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at 2- to 5-year follow-up evaluations. J Arthroplasty. 1995; 10:764–771.

24. Romanowski MR, Repicci JA. Minimally invasive unicondylar arthroplasty: eight-year follow-up. J Knee Surg. 2002; 15:17–22.

25. Kim HJ, Kim TS, Mun JU, Kyung HS. Results of high-flex total knee arthroplasty: minimum 3-year follow-up result. J Korean Orthop Assoc. 2016; 51:145–150.

26. Moon KH, Lee DJ, Lee JS, Kim YT. Total knee replacement arthroplasty with NexGen®-LPS: minimum 5 year follow-up results. J Korean Orthop Assoc. 2011; 46:405–411.

27. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989; (248):13–14.