Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 10/2021

01-10-2021 | Knee-TEP | KNEE

Joint awareness after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies

Authors: Sujit Kumar Tripathy, Paulson Varghese, Anand Srinivasan, Tarun Goyal, Prabhudev Prasad Purudappa, Ramesh Kumar Sen, Mallikarjun Honnenahalli Chandrappa

Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 10/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the joint awareness after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). It was hypothesized that patients with UKA could better forget about their artificial joint in comparison to TKA.

Methods

A search of major literature databases and bibliographic details revealed 105 studies evaluating forgotten joint score in UKA and TKA. Seven studies found eligible for this review were assessed for risk of bias and quality of evidence using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. The forgotten joint score (FJS-12) was assessed at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years.

Results

The mean FJS-12 at 2 years was 82.35 in the UKA group and 74.05 in the TKA group. Forest plot analysis of five studies (n = 930 patients) revealed a mean difference of 7.65 (95% CI: 3.72, 11.57, p = 0.0001; I2 = 89% with p < 0.0001) in FJS-12 at 2 years. Further sensitivity analysis lowered I2 heterogeneity to 31% after exclusion of the study by Blevin et al. (MD 5.88, 95%CI: 3.10, 8.66, p < 0.0001). A similar trend of differences in FJS-12 between the groups was observed at 6 months (MD 32.49, 95% CI: 17.55, 47.43, p < 0.0001) and at 1 year (MD 25.62, 95% CI: 4.26, 46.98, p = 0.02).

Conclusions

UKA patients can better forget about their artificial joint compared to TKA patients.

Level of evidence

III.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Adriani M, Malahias MA, Gu A, Kahlenberg CA, Ast MP, Sculco PK (2020) Determining the validity, reliability, and utility of the forgotten joint score: a systematic review. J Arthroplasty 35(4):1137–1144PubMedCrossRef
2.
Alviar MJ, Olver J, Brand C, Hale T, Khan F (2011) Do patient-reported outcome measures used in assessing outcomes in rehabilitation after hip and knee arthroplasty capture issues relevant to patients? Results of a systematic review and ICF linking process. J Rehabil Med 43(5):374–381PubMedCrossRef
3.
Arirachakaran A, Choowit P, Putananon C, Muangsiri S, Kongtharvonskul J (2015) Is unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) superior to total knee arthroplasty (TKA)? A systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 25(5):799–806PubMedCrossRef
4.
Baker PN, Petheram T, Jameson SS, Avery PJ, Reed MR, Gregg PJ et al (2012) Comparison of patient-reported outcome measures following total and unicondylar knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94(7):919–927PubMedCrossRef
5.
Behrend H, Giesinger K, Giesinger JM, Kuster MS (2012) The “forgotten joint” as the ultimate goal in joint arthroplasty: validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure. J Arthroplasty 27(3):430-436.e1PubMedCrossRef
6.
Behrend H, Zdravkovic V, Giesinger J, Giesinger K (2016) Factors predicting the forgotten joint score after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 31(9):1927–1932PubMedCrossRef
7.
Blevins JL, Carroll KM, Burger JA, Pearle AD, Bostrom MP, Haas SB et al (2020) Postoperative outcomes of total knee arthroplasty compared to unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a matched comparison. Knee 27(2):565–571PubMedCrossRef
8.
Blyth MJG, Anthony I, Rowe P, Banger MS, MacLean A, Jones B (2017) Robotic arm-assisted versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: exploratory secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Bone Joint Res 6(11):631–639PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
9.
Bullens PH, van Loon CJ, de Waal Malefijt MC, Laan RF, Veth RP (2001) Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: a comparison between subjective and objective outcome assessments. J Arthroplasty 16(6):740–747PubMedCrossRef
10.
Burn E, Sanchez-Santos MT, Pandit HG, Hamilton TW, Liddle AD, Murray DW et al (2018) Ten-year patient-reported outcomes following total and minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a propensity score-matched cohort analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26(5):1455–1464PubMedCrossRef
11.
Carlson VR, Post ZD, Orozco FR, Davis DM, Lutz RW, Ong AC (2018) When does the knee feel normal again: a cross-sectional study assessing the forgotten joint score in patients after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 33(3):700–703PubMedCrossRef
12.
Casper DS, Fleischman AN, Papas PV, Grossman J, Scuderi GR, Lonner JH (2019) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty provides significantly greater improvement in function than total knee arthroplasty despite equivalent satisfaction for isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty 34(8):1611–1616PubMedCrossRef
13.
Chawla H, van der List JP, Christ AB, Sobrero MR, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD (2017) Annual revision rates of partial versus total knee arthroplasty: a comparative meta-analysis. Knee 24:179–190PubMedCrossRef
14.
Clement ND, Bell A, Simpson P, Macpherson G, Patton JT, Hamilton DF (2020) Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty has a greater early functional outcome when compared to manual total knee arthroplasty for isolated medial compartment arthritis. Bone Joint Res 9(1):15–22PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
15.
Dai YK, Lin W, Yang GM, Lu JF, Wang F (2020) Joint awareness after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty evaluated with the forgotten joint score. Orthop Surg 12(1):218–223PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
16.
D’Apuzzo MR, Novicoff WM, Browne JA (2015) The John Insall Award: morbid obesity independently impacts complications, mortality, and resource use after TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(1):57–63PubMedCrossRef
17.
Fabre-Aubrespy M, Ollivier M, Pesenti S, Parratte S, Argenson JN (2016) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients older than 75 results in better clinical outcomes and similar survivorship compared to total knee arthroplasty A matched controlled study. J Arthroplasty 31(12):2668–2671PubMedCrossRef
18.
Forster-Horváth C, Artz N, Hassaballa MA, Robinson JR, Porteous AJ, Murray JR et al (2016) Survivorship and clinical outcome of the minimally invasive Uniglide medial fixed bearing, all-polyethylene tibia, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a mean follow-up of 7.3years. Knee 23:981–986PubMedCrossRef
19.
Gandhi R, Razak F, Davey JR, Rampersaud YR, Mahomed NN (2010) Effect of sex and living arrangement on the timing and outcome of joint replacement surgery. Can J Surg 53(1):37–41PubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Gilmour A, MacLean AD, Rowe PJ, Banger MS, Donnelly I, Jones BG et al (2018) Robotic-arm-assisted vs conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. The 2-year clinical outcomes of a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty 33(7S):S109–S115PubMedCrossRef
21.
22.
Hamilton TW, Pandit HG, Jenkins C, Mellon SJ, Dodd CAF, Murray DW (2017) Evidence-based indications for mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in a consecutive cohort of thousand knees. J Arthroplasty 32:1779–1785PubMedCrossRef
23.
24.
Hiyama Y, Wada O, Nakakita S, Mizuno K (2016) Joint awareness after total knee arthroplasty is affected by pain and quadriceps strength. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 102(4):435–439PubMedCrossRef
25.
Hutton B, Wolfe D, Moher D, Shamseer L (2017) Reporting guidance considerations from a statistical perspective: overview of tools to enhance the rigour of reporting of randomized trials and systematic reviews. Evid Based Ment Health 20:46–52PubMedCrossRef
26.
Kazarian GS, Lonner JH, Maltenfort MG, Ghomrawi HMK, Chen AF (2018) Cost-effectiveness of surgical and nonsurgical treatments for unicompartmental knee arthritis: a markov model. J Bone Joint Surg Am 100(19):1653–1660PubMedCrossRef
27.
Kennedy DM, Hanna SE, Stratford PW, Wessel J, Gollish JD (2006) Preoperative function and gender predict pattern of functional recovery after hip and knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 21(4):559–566PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
28.
Kim MS, Koh IJ, Choi YJ, Lee JY, In Y (2017) Differences in patient-reported outcomes between unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasties: a propensity score-matched analysis. J Arthroplasty 32(5):1453–1459PubMedCrossRef
29.
Kleeblad LJ, van der List JP, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD (2018) Larger range of motion and increased return to activity, but higher revision rates following unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in patients under 65: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26(6):1811–1822PubMedCrossRef
30.
Liddle AD, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray DW (2015a) Optimal usage of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study of 41,986 cases from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Bone Joint J 97-B:1506–1511PubMedCrossRef
31.
Liddle AD, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray DW (2015b) Patient-reported outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study of 14,076 matched patients from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Bone Joint J 97-B(6):793–801PubMedCrossRef
32.
Lygre SH, Espehaug B, Havelin LI, Furnes O (2010) Vollset SE (2010) Pain and function in patients after primary unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92(18):2890–2897PubMedCrossRef
33.
Lyons MC, MacDonald SJ, Somerville LE, Naudie DD, McCalden RW (2012) Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty database analysis: is there a winner? Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(1):84–90PubMedCrossRef
34.
Mackie A, Muthumayandi K, Shirley M, Deehan D, Gerrand C (2015) Association between body mass index change and outcome in the first year after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 30(2):206–209PubMedCrossRef
35.
Matsumoto M, Baba T, Homma Y, Kobayashi H, Ochi H, Yuasa T et al (2015) Validation study of the forgotten joint score-12 as a universal patient-reported outcome measure. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 25(7):1141–1145PubMedCrossRef
36.
Noble PC, Conditt MA, Cook KF, Mathis KB (2006) The John Insall Award: patient expectations affect satisfaction with total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 452:35–43PubMedCrossRef
37.
Pandit H, Hamilton TW, Jenkins C, Mellon SJ, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2015) The clinical outcome of minimally invasive Phase 3 Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a 15-year follow-up of 1000 UKAs. Bone Joint J 97-B:1493–1500PubMedCrossRef
38.
Parsley BS, Bertolusso R, Harrington M, Brekke A, Noble PC (2010) Influence of gender on age of treatment with TKA and functional outcome. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(7):1759–1764PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
39.
Peersman G, Jak W, Vandenlangenbergh T, Jans C, Cartier P, Fennema P (2014) Cost-effectiveness of unicondylar versus total knee arthroplasty: a Markov model analysis. Knee 21(Suppl 1):S37–S42PubMedCrossRef
40.
Peersman G, Verhaegen J, Favier B (2019) The forgotten joint score in total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. Int Orthop 43(12):2739–2745PubMedCrossRef
41.
Petterson SC, Raisis L, Bodenstab A, Snyder-Mackler L (2007) Disease-specific gender differences among total knee arthroplasty candidates. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(11):2327–2333PubMedCrossRef
42.
Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program] Version 5.3 (2014) The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen. Accessed 19 Sept 2020
43.
Rodriguez-Merchan EC (2015) Review article: outcome of total knee arthroplasty in obese patients. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 23(1):107–110CrossRef
44.
Sansone V, Fennema P, Applefield RC, Marchina S, Ronco R, Pascale W et al (2020) Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation of the Italian language forgotten joint score-12 (FJS-12) as an outcome measure for total knee arthroplasty in an Italian population. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 21(1):23PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
45.
Schmidt FL, Oh IS, Hayes TL (2009) Fixed- versus random-effects models in metaanalysis: model properties and an empirical comparison of differences in results. Br J Math Stat Psychol 62:97–128PubMedCrossRef
46.
Suda AJ, Seeger JB, Bitsch RG, Krueger M, Clarius M (2010) Are patients’ expectations of hip and knee arthroplasty fulfilled? A prospective study of 130 patients. Orthopedics 33(2):76–80PubMed
47.
Thienpont E, Opsomer G, Koninckx A, Houssiau F (2014) Joint awareness in different types of knee arthroplasty evaluated with the forgotten joint score. J Arthroplasty 29(1):48–51PubMedCrossRef
48.
Thomsen MG, Latifi R, Kallemose T, Barfod KW, Husted H, Troelsen A (2016) Good validity and reliability of the forgotten joint score in evaluating the outcome of total knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 87(3):280–285PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
49.
Vasso M, Del Regno C, D’Amelio A, Viggiano D, Corona K, Schiavone Panni A (2015) Minor varus alignment provides better results than neutral alignment in medial UKA. Knee 22(2):117–121PubMedCrossRef
50.
Von Keudell A, Sodha S, Collins J, Minas T, Fitz W, Gomoll AH (2014) Patient satisfaction after primary total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: an age-dependent analysis. Knee 21(1):180–184CrossRef
51.
52.
53.
Willis-Owen CA, Brust K, Alsop H, Miraldo M, Cobb JP (2009) Unicondylar knee arthroplasty in the UK National Health Service: an analysis of candidacy, outcome and cost efficacy. Knee 16:473–478PubMedCrossRef
54.
Wilson HA, Middleton R, Abram SGF, Smith S, Alvand A, Jackson WF et al (2019) Patient relevant outcomes of unicompartmental versus total knee replacement: systematic review and metaanalysis. Br Med J 364:1352
55.
Zlowodzki M, Poolman RW, Kerkhoffs GM, Tornetta P, Bhandari M (2007) International Evidence-Based Orthopedic Surgery Working Group. How to interpret a metaanalysis and judge its value as a guide for clinical practice. Acta Orthop 78(5):598–609PubMedCrossRef
56.
Zuiderbaan HA, van der List JP, Khamaisy S, Nawabi DH, Thein R, Ishmael C et al (2017) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty: which type of artificial joint do patients forget? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25(3):681–686PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Joint awareness after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies
Authors
Sujit Kumar Tripathy
Paulson Varghese
Anand Srinivasan
Tarun Goyal
Prabhudev Prasad Purudappa
Ramesh Kumar Sen
Mallikarjun Honnenahalli Chandrappa
Publication date
01-10-2021
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords
Knee-TEP
Knee-TEP
Published in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Issue 10/2021
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-06327-4

Other articles of this Issue 10/2021

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 10/2021 Go to the issue

KNEE

Reliable improvements in participation in low-impact sports following implantation of a patellofemoral inlay arthroplasty at mid-term follow-up

KNEE

A hinge position distal to the adductor tubercle minimizes the risk of hinge fractures in lateral open wedge distal femoral osteotomy

KNEE

Similar postoperative outcomes after total knee arthroplasty with measured resection and gap balancing techniques using a contemporary knee system: a randomized controlled trial

KNEE

Incidence of and risk factors for deep vein thrombosis in patients undergoing osteotomies around the knee: comparative analysis of different osteotomy types

KNEE

Restoration of pre-operative joint line orientation and alignment does not affect KSS and KOOS 1 year after total knee arthroplasty

KNEE

Comparable mid-term revision rates of primary cemented and cementless total knee arthroplasties in 201,211 cases in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (2007–2017)