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

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 10/2007

01-10-2007 | Knee

Functional improvement after unicompartmental knee replacement: a follow-up study with a performance based knee test

Authors: Lucas L. A. Kleijn, Wouter L. W. van Hemert, Will G. H. Meijers, Arnold D. M. Kester, Lukas Lisowski, Bernd Grimm, Ide C. Heyligers

Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 10/2007

Login to get access

Abstract

In literature no reports appear on functional recovery of unicompartmental knee replacement using both subjective and objective methods. Functional aspects are especially of importance, since prosthetic replacement is considered more often in younger patients, who require an optimal knee function for activities such as sports. In a prospective study on 38 patients with a mean age of 62.2 years functional improvement was measured. Using Knee Society Score (KSS) as a clinician based score and the Dynaport® Knee Test as a functional test measurements were performed at preoperative, 3 and 6 months, 1 and 2 years, after surgery. The Dynaport® Knee Test is an accelerometer-based system that objectively measures functional aspects of gait during various tasks of daily life. It consists of four sub scores. The KSS assesses pain and function. Both scores range from 0 to 100. The mean KSS preoperative was 44.0 and improved significantly to 81.7 at 3 months (P < 0.001) and to 87.4 (P = 0.025) at 6 months. No significant differences were noted after 6 months. The mean preoperative Dynaport® Knee Test score was 35.8 and at 3 months 43.6 (P < 0.001), 48.6 at 6 months (P < 0.001). No significant differences were noted after 6 months follow-up. Of the Dynaport sub scores, the low demanding tasks Lift and Move and Locomotion, cease to improve beyond 6 months. The high demanding task Transfers only improved up to 3 months. However, the other high demanding tasks Rise and Descend showed improvement beyond 1 year after surgery, since the improvement from 6 months to 2 years was significant (P = 0.023). This study has found that functional recovery continues beyond 6 months and even up to 2 years. It seems only more challenging tests can discriminate on improvement beyond a point where questionnaires cease to improve. The use of objective measurement methods is advocated next to the clinician based scores and self reported questionnaires.
Literature
1.
Amin AK, Patton JT, Cook RE, Gaston M, Brenkel IJ (2006) Unicompartmental or total knee arthroplasty? Results from a matched study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 451:101–106PubMedCrossRef
2.
Buckwalter JA, Einhorn TA, Simon SR (2000) Orthopaedic basic science, 2nd edn. AAOS, Illinois, USA
3.
Goodfellow J, O’Connor J (1978) The mechanics of the knee and prosthesis design. J Bone Joint Surg Br 60-B:358–369PubMed
4.
Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the knee society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:13–14PubMed
5.
Keys GW, Ul-Abiddin Z, Toh EM (2004) Analysis of first forty Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement from a small district hospital in UK. Knee 11:375–377PubMedCrossRef
6.
Kreibich DN et al (1996) What is the best way of assessing outcome after total knee replacement? Clin Orthop Relat Res 331:221–225PubMedCrossRef
7.
Lewek MD, Rudolph KS, Snyder-Mackler L (2004) Quadriceps femoris muscle weakness and activation failure in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. J Orthop Res 22:110–115PubMedCrossRef
8.
Maly MR, Costigan PA, Olney SJ (2006) Determinants of self-report outcome measures in people with knee osteoarthritis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 87:96–104PubMedCrossRef
9.
Mattsson E, Olsson E, Brostrom LA (1990) Assessment of walking before and after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. A comparison of different methods. Scand J Rehabil Med 22:45–50PubMed
10.
Mizner RL, Stevens JE, Snyder-Mackler L (2003) Voluntary activation and decreased force production of the quadriceps femoris muscle after total knee arthroplasty. Phys Ther 83:359–365PubMed
11.
Mokkink LB et al (2005) Reproducibility and validity of the Dyna Port Knee Test. Arthritis Rheum 53:357–363PubMedCrossRef
12.
Murray DW, Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ (1998) The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a ten-year survival study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:983–989PubMedCrossRef
13.
Naudie D, Guerin J, Parker DA, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH (2004) Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with the Miller–Galante prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A:1931–1935PubMed
14.
Newman JH, Ackroyd CE, Shah NA (1998) Unicompartmental or total knee replacement? Five-year results of a prospective, randomised trial of 102 osteoarthritic knees with unicompartmental arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:862–865PubMedCrossRef
15.
Pennington DW, Swienckowski JJ, Lutes WB, Drake GN (2003) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients sixty years of age or younger. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A:1968–1973PubMed
16.
Price AJ, Waite JC, Svard U (2005) Long-term clinical results of the medial Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 435:171–180PubMedCrossRef
17.
Rajasekhar C, Das S, Smith A (2004) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. 2- to 12-year results in a community hospital. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86:983–985PubMedCrossRef
18.
Rees JL, Price AJ, Beard DJ, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2004) Minimally invasive Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: functional results at 1 year and the effect of surgical inexperience. Knee 11:363–367PubMedCrossRef
19.
Robertsson O, Borgquist L, Knutson K, Lewold S, Lidgren L (1999) Use of unicompartmental instead of tricompartmental prostheses for unicompartmental arthrosis in the knee is a cost-effective alternative. 15,437 primary tricompartmental prostheses were compared with 10,624 primary medial or lateral unicompartmental prostheses. Acta Orthop Scand 70:170–175PubMedCrossRef
20.
Ryd L, Karrholm J, Ahlvin P (1997) Knee scoring systems in gonarthrosis. Evaluation of interobserver variability and the envelope of bias. Score Assessment Group. Acta Orthop Scand 68:41–45PubMedCrossRef
21.
Schai PA, Suh JT, Thornhill TS, Scott RD (1998) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in middle-aged patients: a 2- to 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty 13:365–372PubMedCrossRef
22.
van den Dikkenberg N et al (2002) Measuring functional abilities of patients with knee problems: rationale and construction of the DynaPort knee test. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 10:204–212PubMed
23.
Weale AE, Halabi OA, Jones PW, White SH (2001) Perceptions of outcomes after unicompartmental and total knee replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res 382:143–153PubMedCrossRef
24.
Webster KE, Wittwer JE, Feller JA (2003) Quantitative gait analysis after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty 18:751–759PubMedCrossRef
25.
Weidenhielm L, Olsson E, Brostrom LA, Borjesson-Hederstrom M, Mattsson E (1993) Improvement in gait one year after surgery for knee osteoarthrosis: a comparison between high tibial osteotomy and prosthetic replacement in a prospective randomized study. Scand J Rehabil Med 25:25–31PubMed
26.
Witvrouw E et al (2002) A correlation study of objective functionality and WOMAC in total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 10:347–351PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Functional improvement after unicompartmental knee replacement: a follow-up study with a performance based knee test
Authors
Lucas L. A. Kleijn
Wouter L. W. van Hemert
Will G. H. Meijers
Arnold D. M. Kester
Lukas Lisowski
Bernd Grimm
Ide C. Heyligers
Publication date
01-10-2007
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Issue 10/2007
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-007-0351-7

Other articles of this Issue 10/2007

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 10/2007 Go to the issue

Knee

Cross-pin femoral fixation in PCL reconstruction: a cadaver study

Knee

ACL reconstruction in a rabbit model using irradiated Achilles allograft seeded with mesenchymal stem cells or PDGF-B gene-transfected mesenchymal stem cells

Knee

The influence of meniscal lesions on reflex activity in the hamstring muscles

Shoulder

Arthroscopic treatment for synovial chondromatosis of the subacromial bursa: a case report

Knee

Knee osteotomy: navigation guided and arthroscopy assisted

Knee

Double bundle or single bundle plus extraarticular tenodesis in ACL reconstruction?