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 3/2021

01-03-2021 | Osteoarthrosis | KNEE

No difference in patient satisfaction after mobile bearing or fixed bearing medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Authors: Yvette Pronk, Angela Anna Maria Paters, Justus-Martijn Brinkman

Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 3/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has excellent survival rates using one of the two implant designs: mobile bearing (MB) or fixed bearing (FB). There is a lack of studies comparing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of both implants. This study aimed to document and compare PROs of MB UKA to FB UKA at 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery.

Methods

A single high-volume surgeon, retrospective cohort study with prospectively collected data of two groups of UKA patients, with a MB (n = 66) or FB (n = 97) implant. Primary outcome was patient satisfaction (0–10; NRS). Secondary outcomes were pain at rest (NRS), pain during activity (NRS), function (OKS, KOOS-PS), quality of life (EQ-5D-3L), anchor pain, anchor function and anchor recovery. PROs were collected 6, 12 and 24 months postoperatively. The complication rate and revision rate within one year after surgery were recorded.

Results

For the MB group, the median NRS satisfaction score was 9.0 (8.0–10.0) compared to 9.0 (8.0–9.5) for the FB group at 6 months (p = 0.620). Similar scores were found at 12 and 24 months; both MB 9.0 (8.0–10.0) and FB 9.0 (8.0–10.0) (p = 0.556 and p = 0.522, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences between MB and FB groups in all secondary outcomes postoperatively.

Conclusion

Medial UKA performed by a high-volume surgeon, using a MB or a FB implant, results in excellent patient satisfaction, pain relief, functional improvement and quality of life improvement at 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery. The recommendation and use of one over the other is not justified based on the outcomes in the current study.

Level of evidence

III.
Literature
1.
Andrawis JP, Chenok KE, Bozic KJ (2013) Health policy implications of outcomes measurement in orthopaedics. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(11):3475–3481CrossRef
2.
Bhattacharya R, Scott CEH, Morris HE, Wade F, Nutton RW (2012) Survivorship and patient satisfaction of a fixed bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty incorporating an all-polyethylene tibial component. Knee 19(4):348–351CrossRef
3.
Biau DJ, Greidanus NV, Garbuz DS, Masri BA (2013) No difference in quality-of-life outcomes after mobile and fixed-bearing medial unicompartmental knee replacement. J Arthroplasty 28(2):220–226CrossRef
4.
Biswal S, Brighton RW (2010) Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cemented, fixed-bearing prosthesis using minimally invasive surgery. J Arthroplasty 25(5):721–727CrossRef
5.
Campi S, Tibrewal S, Cuthbert R, Tibrewal SB (2018) Unicompartmental knee replacement—current perspectives. J Clin Orthop Trauma 9(1):17–23CrossRef
6.
Cao ZW, Niu CL, Gong CZ, Sun Y, Xie JH, Song YL (2019) Comparison of fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 34(12):3114–3123CrossRef
7.
Choi YJ, Ra HJ (2016) Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res 28(1):1–15CrossRef
8.
Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A (1998) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Jt Surg Br 80(1):63–69CrossRef
9.
EuroQol Group (1990) EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16(3):199–208CrossRef
10.
Felts E, Parratte S, Pauly V, Aubaniac JM, Argenson JN (2010) Function and quality of life following medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients 60 years of age or younger. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 96(8):861–867CrossRef
11.
Gleeson RE, Evans R, Ackroyd CE, Webb J, Newman JH (2004) Fixed or mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement? A comparative cohort study. Knee 11(5):379–384CrossRef
12.
Goh GSH, Liow MHL, Pang HN, Tay DKJ, Lo NN, Yeo SJ (2018) Patients with poor baseline mental health undergoing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty have poorer outcomes. J Arthroplasty 33(8):2428–2434CrossRef
13.
Goodfellow J, O’Connor J, Dodd C, Murray D (2006) Unicompartmental arthroplasty with the Oxford Knee. Oxford University Press, New York
14.
Harris IA, Harris AM, Naylor JM, Adie S, Mittal R, Dao AT (2013) Discordance between patient and surgeon satisfaction after total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 28(5):722–727CrossRef
15.
Hjermstad MJ, Fayers PM, Haugen DF, Caraceni A, Hanks GW, Loge JH, Fainsinger R, Aass N, Kaasa S (2011) Studies comparing numerical rating scales, verbal rating scales, and visual analogue scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: A systematic literature review. J Pain Symptom Manage 41(6):1073–1093CrossRef
16.
17.
18.
Kamper SJ, Ostelo RWJG, Knol DL, Maher CG, de Vet HCW, Hancock MJ (2010) Global perceived effect scales provided reliable assessments of health transition in people with musculoskeletal disorders, but ratings are strongly influenced by current status. J Clin Epidemiol 63(7):760–766CrossRef
19.
Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS (1957) Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis 16(4):494–502CrossRef
20.
Koh IJ, Kim MS, Sohn S, Song KY, Choi NY, Jung H, In Y (2019) Predictive factors for satisfaction after contemporary unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and high tibial osteotomy in isolated medial femorotibial osteoarthritis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 105(1):77–83CrossRef
21.
Lau RL, Gandhi R, Mahomed S, Mahomed N (2012) Patient satisfaction after total knee and hip arthroplasty. Clin Geriatr Med 28(3):349–365CrossRef
22.
Lee M, Huang Y, Chong HC, Ning Y, Lo NN, Yeo SJ (2016) Predicting satisfaction for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty patients in an asian population. J Arthroplasty 31(8):1706–1710CrossRef
23.
Liddle AD, Judge A, Pandit H, Murray DW (2014) Determinants of revision and functional outcome following unicompartmental knee replacement. Osteoarthr Cartil 22(9):1241–1250CrossRef
24.
Liddle AD, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray DW (2015) Optimal usage of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study of 41 986 cases from the national joint registry for England and Wales. Bone Jt J 97-B(11):1506–1511CrossRef
25.
Liddle AD, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray DW (2016) Effect of surgical caseload on revision rate following total and unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Jt Surg Am 98(1):1–8CrossRef
26.
27.
28.
29.
Neufeld ME, Albers A, Greidanus NV, Garbuz DS, Masri BA (2018) A comparison of mobile and fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum 10-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 33(6):1713–1718CrossRef
30.
31.
32.
Peersman G, Stuyts B, Vandenlangenbergh T, Cartier P, Fennema P (2015) Fixed- versus mobile-bearing UKA: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 23(11):3296–3305CrossRef
33.
Perruccio AV, Stefan Lohmander L, Canizares M, Tennant A, Hawker GA, Conaghan PG, Roos EM, Jordan JM, Maillefert JF, Dougados M, Davis AM (2008) The development of a short measure of physical function for knee OA KOOS-Physical Function Shortform (KOOS-PS)—an OARSI/OMERACT initiative. Osteoarthr Cartil 16(5):542–550CrossRef
34.
Rolfson O, Bohm E, Franklin P, Lyman S, Denissen G, Dawson J, Dunn J, Eresian Chenok K, Dunbar M, Overgaard S, Garellick G, Lübbeke A (2016) Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries: Report of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries Part II. Recommendations for selection, administration, and analysis. Acta Orthop 87(1):9–23CrossRef
35.
36.
37.
van der List JP, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD (2016) Why do medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties fail today? J Arthroplasty 31(5):1016–1021CrossRef
38.
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
39.
Wylde V, Blom AW, Whitehouse SL, Taylor AH, Pattison GT, Bannister GC (2009) Patient-reported outcomes after total hip and knee arthroplasty Comparison of midterm results. J Arthroplasty 24(2):210–216CrossRef
Metadata
Title
No difference in patient satisfaction after mobile bearing or fixed bearing medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty
Authors
Yvette Pronk
Angela Anna Maria Paters
Justus-Martijn Brinkman
Publication date
01-03-2021
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Issue 3/2021
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-06053-x

Other articles of this Issue 3/2021

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 3/2021 Go to the issue

KNEE

Evolving evidence in the treatment of primary and recurrent posterior cruciate ligament injuries, part 2: surgical techniques, outcomes and rehabilitation

KNEE

Hip-to-calcaneus alignment differs from hip-to-talus alignment in patients with genu varum deformity

KNEE

Variations in medial and lateral slope and medial proximal tibial angle

KNEE

Femoral and tibial bone bruise volume is not correlated with ALL injury or rotational instability in patients with ACL-deficient knee

KNEE

Physeal-sparing posteromedial portal approach reduced distance between guide pin and neurovascular structures

KNEE

The quadriceps insertion of the medial patellofemoral complex demonstrates the greatest anisometry through flexion