Top

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

Published in:

01-09-2009 | Orthopaedic Surgery

Bi-unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty: a matched paired study with early clinical results

Authors: N. Confalonieri, A. Manzotti, P. Cerveri, E. De Momi

Published in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery | Issue 9/2009

Abstract

Introduction

The authors performed a matched paired study between two groups: bi-unicompartmental (Bi-UKR) versus total knee replacements (TKR) for the treatment of isolated bicompartmental tibio-femoral knee arthritis with an asymptomatic patello-femoral joint. The Authors believe that Bi-UKR could achieve comparable outcomes than TKR, but with a real less invasive surgery and maintaining a higher joint function.

Materials and methods

A total of 22 patients with bicompartmental tibio-femoral knee arthritis, who underwent Bi-UKR between January 1999 and March 2003, were included in the study (group A). In all the knees the arthritic changes were graded according to the classification of Älback. All patients had an asymptomatic patello-femoral joint. All patients had a varus deformity lower than 8°, a body-mass index lower than 34, no clinical evidence of ACL laxity or flexion deformity and a preoperative range of motion of a least 110°. At a minimum follow-up of 48 months, every single patient in group A was matched with a patient who had undergone a computer assisted TKR between August 1999 and September 2002 (group B). In the Bi-UKR group, in two cases we registered intraoperatively the avulsion of the treated tibial spines, requiring intra-operative internal fixation and without adverse effects on the final outcome. Statistical analysis of the results was performed.

Results

At a minimum follow-up of 48 months there were no statistical significant differences in the surgical time while the hospital stay was statistically longer in TKR group. No statistically significant difference was seen for the Knee Society, Functional and GIUM scores between the two groups. Statistically significant better WOMAC Function and Stiffness indexes were registered for the Bi-UKR group. TKR implants were statistically better aligned with all the implants positioned within 4° of an ideal hip–knee–ankle (HKA) angle of 180°.

Conclusions

The results of this 48 months follow-up study suggest that Bi-UKR is a viable option for bicompartmental tibio-femoral arthritis at least as well as TKR but maintaining a higher level of function.

Älback S (1968) Osteoarthrosis of the knee. A radiographic investigation. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh) 277 Suppl:7–72

Asharaf T, Newman JH, Evans RL, Ackroyd CE (2002) Lateral survivorship and clinical experience over 21 years unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg 84:1126–1130CrossRef

Banks SA, Frely BJ, Boniforti F, Reischmidt C, Romagnoli S (2005) Comparing in vivo kinematics of unicondylar and bi-unicondylar knee replacement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 13:551–556PubMedCrossRef

Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW (1988) Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip and knee. J Rheumatol 15:1833–1840PubMed

Berger RA, Meneghini RM, Jacobs JJ, Skeinkop MB, Della Valle CJ, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO (2005) Results of unicompartimental knee arthroplasty at a follow-up of ten-years. J Bone Joint Surg 87-A:999–1006CrossRef

Berger RA, Sanders S, Gerlinger T, Della Valle C, Jacobs JJ, Rosenberg AG (2005) Outpatient total knee arthroplasty with a minimally invasive technique. J Arthroplasty 207(Suppl 3):33–38CrossRef

Bert JM (2005) Unicompartmental knee replacement. Orthop Clin North Am 36(4):513–522PubMedCrossRef

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

Confalonieri M, Manzotti A (2005) Mini-invasive computer assisted di-unicompartimental knee replacement. Int Med Robot 1(4):45–50

10.

Fuchs S, Frisse D, Tibesku CO, Genkinger M, Laaß H, Rosenbaum D (2002) Proprioceptive function, clinical results and quality of life after unicondylar sledge prostheses. Am J Phys Med Rehab 81:478–482CrossRef

11.

Fuchs S, Tibesku CO, Frisse D, Genkinger m, Laaß H, Rosenbaum D (2005) Clinical and functional of uni- and bicondylar sledge prostheses. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 13:197–202PubMedCrossRef

12.

Goodfellow JW, O’Connor J (1986) Clinical results of the Oxford knee. Surface arthroplasty of the tibiofemoral joint with a meniscal bearing prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 205:21–42PubMed

13.

Hernigou P, Deschamps G (2004) Posterior slope of the tibial implant and the outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A(3):506–511PubMed

14.

Hollinghurst D, Stoney J, Ward T, Gill HS, Newman JH, Murray DW, Beard DJ (2006) No deterioration of kinematics and cruciate function 10 years after medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Knee 13(6):440–444PubMedCrossRef

15.

Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1998) Rationale of the Knee Society Clinical Rating System. Clin Orthop 248:13–14

16.

Isaac SM, Barker KL, Danial IN, Beard DJ, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2007) Does arthroplasty type influence knee joint proprioception? A longitudinal prospective study comparing total and unicompartmental arthroplasty. Knee 14(3):212–217PubMedCrossRef

17.

Kozinn SC, Scott R (1989) Unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 71A(1):145–150

18.

Laskin RS (2005) Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty: the results justify its use. Clin Orthop Relat Res 440:54–59PubMedCrossRef

19.

Laurencin CT, Zelicof SB, Scott RD, Ewald FC (2001) Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty for the treatment of gonarthrosis. Clin Orthop 273:151–156

20.

Ma HM, Lu YC, Ho FY, Huang CH (2005) Long-term results of total condylar knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 20:580–584PubMedCrossRef

21.

Manzotti A, Confalonieri N, Pullen C (2006) Grafting of tibial bone defects in knee replacement using Norian skeletal repair system. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 126(9):594–598PubMedCrossRef

22.

Manzotti A, Confalonieri N, Pullen C (2007) Unicompartmental versus computer-assisted total knee replacement for medial compartment knee arthritis: a matched paired study. Int Orthop 31(3):315–319PubMedCrossRef

23.

Murray DW (2005) Mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement. Orthopaedics 28(9):985–987

24.

Newman JH, Ackroyd CE, Shah NA (2001) Unicompartmental or total knee replacement? J Bone Joint Surg 80B:862–865

25.

Pagnano MW, Clarke HD, Jacofsky DJ, Amendola A, Repicci JA (2005) Surgical treatment of the middle-aged patient with arthritic knees. Instr Course Lect 54:251–259PubMed

26.

Pandit H, Beard DJ, Jenkins C, Kimstra Y, Thomas NP, Dodd CAF, Murray DW (2006) Combined ACL reconstruction and Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 88B:887–892

27.

Pandit H, Van Duren BH, Gallagher JA, Beard DJ, Dodd CA, Gill HS, Murray DW (2008) Combined anterior cruciate reconstruction and Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: in vivo kinematics. Knee 15(2):101–106PubMedCrossRef

28.

Patil S, Colwell CW, Ezet KA, D’Lima DD (2005) Can normal knee kinematics be restored with Unicompartmental Knee Replacement? J Bone Joint Surg 87A:332–338CrossRef

29.

Pavone V, Boettner F, Fickert S, Sculco TP (2001) Total condylar knee arthroplasty: a long term follow-up. Clin Orthop 388:18–25PubMedCrossRef

30.

Pennington DW, Swienckowski JJ, Lutes WB, Drake GN (2006) Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: survivorship and technical consideration at an average follow-up of 12.4 years. J Arthroplasty 21:13–17PubMedCrossRef

31.

Price AJ, Short A, Keller C, Beard D, Gill H, Pandit H, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2005) Ten-year in vivo wear measurement of a fully congruent mobile bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 87B:1403–1407

32.

Repicci JA (2003) Mini-invasive knee unicompartmental arthroplasty: bone-sparing technique. Surg Technol Int 11:282–286PubMed

33.

Sah AP, Scott R (2007) Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty through a medial approach. J Bone Joint Surg 89-A:1048–1053

34.

Stewart HD, Newton G (1992) Long-term results of the Manchester knee.Surface arthroplasty of the tibiofemoral joint. Clin Orthop Relat Res 278:138–146PubMed

35.

Swienckowski JJ, Pennington DW (2004) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients sixty years of age or younger. J Bone Joint Surg 86 A(Suppl 1 Pt 2):131–142PubMed

36.

Weale AE, Halabi OA, Jones PW, White SH (2001) Perceptions of out-comes after unicompartmental and total knee replacements. Clin Orthop 382:143–153PubMedCrossRef

Title: Bi-unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty: a matched paired study with early clinical results
Authors: N. Confalonieri
A. Manzotti
P. Cerveri
E. De Momi
Publication date: 01-09-2009
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery / Issue 9/2009
Print ISSN: 0936-8051
Electronic ISSN: 1434-3916
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-008-0713-8

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Bi-unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty: a matched paired study with early clinical results

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 9/2009

Lipofibromatous hamartoma of the median nerve in patients with macrodactyly: diagnosis and treatment of a rare disease causing carpal tunnel syndrome

Arthoplasty using a custom-made cemented total hip prosthesis for an extensive giant cell tumor of the proximal femur: report of a patient followed up for over 30 years

Acetabular component orientation in intra- and postoperative positions in total hip arthroplasty

Growth patterns of osteosarcoma predict patient survival

Resurfacing versus nonresurfacing the patella in total knee arthroplasty: a critical appraisal of the available evidence

Efficacy of an aiming device for the placement of distal interlocking screws in trochanteric fixation nailing