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 3/2023

23-09-2021 | Osteoarthrosis | KNEE

Safe and reliable clinical outcomes at 2 years of a fixed-bearing partial knee arthroplasty with a morphometric tibial tray in a large worldwide population

Authors: Sébastien Parratte, Alexander Sah, Cécile Batailler

Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 3/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate: (1) improvement of functional and quality of life scores, (2) adverse events, (3) short-term implants survivorship of a newly designed fixed-bearing partial knee replacement (PKR) with a morphometric tibial tray in a large and multicentric population at a minimum follow-up of 2 years.

Methods

From 2017 to 2019, 479 medial PKR were implanted by 16 non-developing surgeons from United States, Europe, and Japan. Eight patients were lost to follow-up (1.8%). Standardized follow-up procedures included patient-reported outcomes (Oxford Knee Society score, Forgotten Joint Score, EQ VAS, EQ 5D), patient satisfaction, radiographic assessments, adverse event at 2 years. Comparisons between the preoperative and postoperative values were performed using Student t test. Kaplan–Meier survivorship analysis was performed with knee revision as the endpoint.

Results

The mean age was 65.6 ± 9.6 years. Mean body mass index was 29.5 ± 5.1 kg/m2. Oxford Knee Society score and Forgotten Joint Score, respectively, improved from 23.7 ± 8 and 16 ± 15.8 preoperatively to 42.4 ± 6.5 and 74 ± 24.9 at 2 years (p < 0.0001). Satisfaction Score was 92.3 ± 13.4 at 2 years. Ten re-operations (2.1%) were reported including seven implant removals (1.5%). No other adverse event was reported. The causes of conversion to total knee arthroplasty were: nickel allergy (n = 2), patellofemoral osteoarthritis (n = 1), pain (n = 1), deep infection (n = 3). Two re-operations were performed due to infection, and one for internal fixation for a tibial plateau fracture. The 2-year Kaplan–Meier survival estimate was 98.4%, with implant removals as the endpoint.

Conclusion

This prospective multicentric study reported safe and reliable clinical outcomes of a morphometric PKR, which optimized tibial coverage and femoral fit, in a large population of patients worldwide at 2 years.

Level of evidence

Prospective cohort study–therapeutic study, Level II.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Argenson JN, Blanc G, Aubaniac JM, Parratte S (2013) Modern unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cement: a concise follow-up, at a mean of twenty years, of a previous report. J Bone Jt Surg Am 95:905–909CrossRef
2.
Barbadoro P, Ensini A, Leardini A, d’Amato M, Feliciangeli A, Timoncini A et al (2014) Tibial component alignment and risk of loosening in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a radiographic and radiostereometric study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22:3157–3162CrossRefPubMed
3.
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 27:430–436 ((e431))CrossRefPubMed
4.
Berger RA, Meneghini RM, Jacobs JJ, Sheinkop MB, Della Valle CJ, Rosenberg AG et al (2005) Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum of ten years of follow-up. J Bone Jt Surg Am 87:999–1006CrossRef
5.
6.
Chau R, Gulati A, Pandit H, Beard DJ, Price AJ, Dodd CA et al (2009) Tibial component overhang following unicompartmental knee replacement–does it matter? Knee 16:310–313CrossRefPubMed
7.
Crawford DA, Berend KR, Thienpont E (2020) unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: US and global perspectives. Orthop Clin N Am 51:147–159CrossRef
8.
9.
10.
Escudier JC, Jacquet C, Flecher X, Parratte S, Ollivier M, Argenson JN (2019) Better implant positioning and clinical outcomes with a morphometric unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Results of a retrospective, matched-controlled study. J Arthroplasty 34:2903–2908CrossRefPubMed
11.
Feng Y, Parkin D, Devlin NJ (2014) Assessing the performance of the EQ-VAS in the NHS PROMs programme. Qual Life Res 23:977–989CrossRefPubMed
12.
Fitzpatrick C, FitzPatrick D, Lee J, Auger D (2007) Statistical design of unicompartmental tibial implants and comparison with current devices. Knee 14:138–144CrossRefPubMed
13.
Foran JR, Brown NM, Della Valle CJ, Berger RA, Galante JO (2013) Long-term survivorship and failure modes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:102–108CrossRefPubMed
14.
Gill JR, Nicolai P (2019) Clinical results and 12-year survivorship of the Physica ZUK unicompartmental knee replacement. Knee 26:750–758CrossRefPubMed
15.
16.
Jin QH, Lee WG, Song EK, Jin C, Seon JK (2021) Comparison of long-term survival analysis between open-wedge high tibial osteotomy and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 36:1562–1567 ((e1561))CrossRefPubMed
17.
18.
Ko YB, Gujarathi MR, Oh KJ (2015) Outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of comparative studies between fixed and mobile bearings focusing on complications. Knee Surg Relat Res 27:141–148CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Kort NP, van Raay JJ, van Horn JJ (2007) The Oxford phase III unicompartmental knee replacement in patients less than 60 years of age. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15:356–360CrossRefPubMed
20.
Lee YS, Yun JY, Lee BK (2014) Tibial component coverage based on bone mineral density of the cut tibial surface during unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: clinical relevance of the prevention of tibial component subsidence. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134:85–89CrossRefPubMed
21.
Murray DW, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, Pandit H, Beard DJ, Carr AJ et al (2007) The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Jt Surg Br 89:1010–1014CrossRef
22.
Niinimaki T, Eskelinen A, Makela K, Ohtonen P, Puhto AP, Remes V (2014) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty survivorship is lower than TKA survivorship: a 27-year Finnish registry study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:1496–1501CrossRefPubMed
23.
Registry AJR (2020) American Joint Replacement Registry: the seventh annual report of the AJRR on hip and knee arthroplasty
24.
Registry AOANJR (2020) Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). Hip, knee & shoulder arthroplasty: 2020 annual report, Adelaide; AOA, pp 1–474
25.
Servien E, Saffarini M, Lustig S, Chomel S, Neyret P (2008) Lateral versus medial tibial plateau: morphometric analysis and adaptability with current tibial component design. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16:1141–1145CrossRefPubMed
26.
Stulberg SD, Goyal N (2015) Which tibial tray design achieves maximum coverage and ideal rotation: anatomic, symmetric, or asymmetric? An MRI-based study. J Arthroplasty 30:1839–1841CrossRefPubMed
27.
Van Onsem S, Van Der Straeten C, Arnout N, Deprez P, Van Damme G, Victor J (2016) A new prediction model for patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 31:2660–2667 ((e2661))CrossRefPubMed
28.
29.
Wang Z, Deng W, Shao H, Zhou Y, Li H (2020) Forgotten Joint Score thresholds for forgotten joint status and patient satisfaction after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in Chinese patients. J Arthroplasty 35:2825–2829CrossRefPubMed
30.
Wernecke GC, Harris IA, Houang MT, Seeto BG, Chen DB, MacDessi SJ (2012) Comparison of tibial bone coverage of 6 knee prostheses: a magnetic resonance imaging study with controlled rotation. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 20:143–147CrossRefPubMed
31.
Winnock de Grave P, Barbier J, Luyckx T, Ryckaert A, Gunst P, Van den Daelen L (2018) Outcomes of a fixed-bearing, medial, cemented unicondylar knee arthroplasty design: survival analysis and functional score of 460 cases. J Arthroplasty 33:2792–2799CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Safe and reliable clinical outcomes at 2 years of a fixed-bearing partial knee arthroplasty with a morphometric tibial tray in a large worldwide population
Authors
Sébastien Parratte
Alexander Sah
Cécile Batailler
Publication date
23-09-2021
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Issue 3/2023
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06748-9

Other articles of this Issue 3/2023

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 3/2023 Go to the issue

KNEE

Decreased patient comorbidities and post-operative complications in technology-assisted compared to conventional total knee arthroplasty

KNEE

Risk factors of de novo hyperextension developed after posterior cruciate ligament substituting total knee arthroplasty: a matched case–control study

KNEE

No advantage with navigated versus conventional mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty—10 year results of a randomised controlled trial

KNEE

Medial bicompartmental arthroplasty patients display more normal gait and improved satisfaction, compared to matched total knee arthroplasty patients

KNEE

Total knee arthroplasty improves sports activity and the patient-reported functional outcome at mid-term follow-up

KNEE

Medial congruent polyethylene design show different tibiofemoral kinematics and enhanced congruency compared to a standard symmetrical cruciate retaining design for total knee arthroplasty—an in vivo randomized controlled study of gait using dynamic radiostereometry