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 11/2023

Open Access 27-07-2023 | KNEE

Patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction after revisions of medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties for unexplained pain vs aseptic loosening

Authors: Kristine Bollerup Arndt, Henrik Morville Schrøder, Anders Troelsen, Martin Lindberg-Larsen

Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 11/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Does patients revised for unexplained pain after mUKA present the same PROM and satisfaction scores 1–3 years after revision as patients revised for aseptic loosening?”.

Methods

104 patients undergoing revision of mUKA's for the indications unexplained pain and aseptic loosening were included in the period January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2020.
from the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register. 52 patients were revised for unexplained pain and 52 for aseptic loosening. Patient demographics did not differ between the two groups. PROMs [Oxford Knee Score (OKS), EQ-5D-5L, Forgotten Joint Score (FJS)] and questions about satisfaction with the surgery were sent to digitally secured mailboxes. Pearson’s Chi-square test and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test were used to test for statistical differences between groups.

Results

The median OKS 1–3 years after revision was 26 (IQR 22) for unexplained pain vs 34 (IQR 12) for aseptic loosening, p = 0.033. The median EQ-5D-5L Index after revision was 0.7 (IQR 0.6) for unexplained vs 0.8 (IQR 0.1) for aseptic loosening, p = 0.014. The median FJS after revision was 48 (IQR 10) for unexplained pain vs 52 (IQR 14) for aseptic loosening, p = 0.1. The mean satisfaction with the surgery on a 0–100 scale (100 = not satisfied; 0 = very satisfied) was 55 (IQR 60) for unexplained pain vs 50 (IQR 67) for aseptic loosening, p = 0.087, and patients revised for unexplained pain were less likely to find their knee problem importantly improved (p = 0.032).

Conclusion

Patients undergoing revision of mUKAs for unexplained pain presented poor postoperative PROM scores, and PROM scores were worse compared to those of patients revised for aseptic loosening. Patients revised for unexplained pain were less likely to find their knee problem importantly improved. This study support the evidence against revisions for unexplained pain.

Level of evidence

Level III.
Literature
1.
Baker PN, Petheram T, Avery PJ, Gregg PJ, Deehan DJ (2012) Revision for unexplained pain following unicompartmental and total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94:e126CrossRefPubMed
2.
Beard DJ, Davies LJ, Cook JA, MacLennan G, Price A, Kent S et al (2019) The clinical and cost-effectiveness of total versus partial knee replacement in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis (TOPKAT): 5-year outcomes of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 394:746–756CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
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.e431CrossRefPubMed
4.
Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A (1998) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:63–69CrossRefPubMed
5.
6.
7.
Gagnier JJ, Lai J, Mokkink LB, Terwee CB (2021) COSMIN reporting guideline for studies on measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res 30:2197–2218CrossRefPubMed
8.
Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ, Murray DW (2010) A critique of revision rate as an outcome measure: re-interpretation of knee joint registry data. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92:1628–1631CrossRefPubMed
9.
Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, Elliott V, Fernandez M, O’Neal L et al (2019) The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform 95:103208CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG (2009) Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 42:377–381CrossRefPubMed
11.
Ingelsrud LH, Roos EM, Terluin B, Gromov K, Husted H, Troelsen A (2018) Minimal important change values for the Oxford Knee score and the forgotten joint score at 1 year after total knee replacement. Acta Orthop 89:541–547CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
13.
Kamenaga T, Hiranaka T, Hida Y, Nakano N, Kuroda Y, Tsubosaka M et al (2022) Lateral osteoarthritis progression is associated with a postoperative residual tibiofemoral subluxation in Oxford UKA. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 30:3236–3243CrossRefPubMed
14.
Kennedy JA, Palan J, Mellon SJ, Esler C, Dodd CAF, Pandit HG et al (2020) Most unicompartmental knee replacement revisions could be avoided: a radiographic evaluation of revised Oxford knees in the National Joint Registry. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 28:3926–3934CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Khow YZ, Liow MHL, Goh GS, Chen JY, Lo NN, Yeo SJ (2021) The Oxford knee score minimal clinically important difference for revision total knee arthroplasty. Knee 32:211–217CrossRefPubMed
16.
Klasan A, Parker DA, Lewis PL, Young SW (2022) Low percentage of surgeons meet the minimum recommended unicompartmental knee arthroplasty usage thresholds: analysis of 3037 Surgeons from Three National Joint Registries. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 30:958–964CrossRefPubMed
17.
Klasan A, Tay ML, Frampton C, Young SW (2022) High usage of medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty negatively influences total knee arthroplasty revision rate. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 30:3199–3207CrossRefPubMed
18.
Leta TH, Lygre SH, Skredderstuen A, Hallan G, Gjertsen JE, Rokne B et al (2016) Outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty after aseptic revision to total knee arthroplasty: a comparative study of 768 TKAs and 578 UKAs revised to tkas from the norwegian arthroplasty register (1994–2011). J Bone Joint Surg Am 98:431–440CrossRefPubMed
19.
Liddle AD, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray DW (2015) 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:793–801
20.
Mikkelsen M, Wilson HA, Gromov K, Price AJ, Troelsen A (2022) Comparing surgical strategies for end-stage anteromedial osteoarthritis : total versus unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Bone Jt Open 3:441–447CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
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 Joint Surg Br 89:1010–1014CrossRefPubMed
22.
Mørup-Petersen A, Holm PM, Holm CE, Klausen TW, Skou ST, Krogsgaard MR et al (2018) Knee osteoarthritis patients can provide useful estimates of passive knee range of motion: development and validation of the copenhagen knee ROM scale. J Arthroplasty 33:2875-2883.e2873CrossRefPubMed
23.
Mørup-Petersen A KM, Nielsen R, Paulsen A, Odgaard A. Translation and classical test theory validation of the Danish version of the Oxford Knee Score. [Abstract]. 2019; https://​www.​ortopaedi.​dk/​wp-content/​uploads/​2019/​10/​DOS-Abstract-bog-2019.​pdf.​
24.
Pedersen AB, Mehnert F, Odgaard A, Schrøder HM (2012) Existing data sources for clinical epidemiology: The Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register. Clin Epidemiol 4:125–135CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
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 87:280–285CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
van der List JP, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD (2016) Why Do Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasties Fail Today? J Arthroplasty 31:1016–1021CrossRefPubMed
27.
van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D et al (2012) Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health 15:708–715CrossRefPubMed
28.
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 meta-analysis. BMJ 364:l352CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Metadata
Title
Patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction after revisions of medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties for unexplained pain vs aseptic loosening
Authors
Kristine Bollerup Arndt
Henrik Morville Schrøder
Anders Troelsen
Martin Lindberg-Larsen
Publication date
27-07-2023
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Issue 11/2023
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-023-07483-z

Other articles of this Issue 11/2023

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 11/2023 Go to the issue

KNEE

Restoration of the native tibial joint line obliquity in total knee arthroplasty with inverse kinematic alignment does not increase knee adduction moments

Editorial

Osteotomies around the knee are not just space oddities

KNEE

The posterior cruciate ligament–posterior femoral cortex angle (PCL–PCA) and the lateral collateral ligament (LCL) sign are useful parameters to indicate the progression of knee decompensation over time after an ACL injury

KNEE

Restoration of preoperative tibial alignment improves functional results after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

KNEE

BLU-DAT: a new reliable and accurate arthrometer for measuring anterior knee laxity

KNEE

Discoid lateral meniscus instability in children: part II.: Repair first to minimise the saucerisation