Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Preoperative pain location is a poor predictor of outcome after Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at 1 and 5 years

  • Knee
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

Indications for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) vary between units. Some authors have suggested, and many surgeons believe, that medial UKA should only be performed in patients who localise their pain to the medial joint line. This is despite research showing a poor correlation between patient-reported location of pain and radiological or operative findings in osteoarthritis. The aim of this study is to determine the effect of patient-reported preoperative pain location and functional outcome of UKA at 1 and 5 years.

Methods

Preoperative pain location data were collected for 406 knees (380 patients) undergoing Oxford medial UKA. Oxford Knee Score, American Knee Society Scores and Tegner activity scale were recorded preoperatively and at follow-up; 272/406 (67 %) had pure medial pain, 25/406 (6 %) had pure anterior knee pain, and 109/406 (27 %) had mixed or generalised pain. None had pure lateral pain. The primary outcome interval is 1 year; 132/406 patients had attained 5 years by the time of analysis, and their 5-year data are presented.

Results

At 1 and 5 years, each group had improved significantly by each measure [mean ΔOKS 15.6 (SD 8.9) at year 1, 16.3 (9.3) at year 5]. There was no difference between the groups, nor between patients with and without anterior knee pain or isolated medial pain.

Conclusions

No correlation is demonstrated between preoperative pain location and outcome. We conclude that localised medial pain should not be a prerequisite to UKA and that it may be performed in patients with generalised or anterior knee pain.

Level of evidence

Therapeutic, Level II.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Argenson JN, Komistek RD, Aubaniac JM, Dennis DA, Northcut EJ, Anderson DT, Agostini S (2002) In vivo determination of knee kinematics for subjects implanted with a unicompartmental arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 17(8):1049–1054

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Beard DJ, Pandit H, Gill HS, Hollinghurst D, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2007) The influence of the presence and severity of pre-existing patellofemoral degenerative changes on the outcome of the Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(12):1597–1601

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Beard DJ, Pandit H, Ostlere S, Jenkins C, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2007) Pre-operative clinical and radiological assessment of the patellofemoral joint in unicompartmental knee replacement and its influence on outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(12):1602–1607

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Berger RA, Meneghini RM, Sheinkop MB, Della Valle CJ, Jacobs JJ, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO (2004) The progression of patellofemoral arthrosis after medial unicompartmental replacement: results at 11 to 15 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res 428:92–99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bert J (2008) Unicompartmental arthroplasty for unicompartmental knee arthritis. Tech Knee Surg 7(1):51–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Breeman S, Campbell M, Dakin H, Fiddian N, Fitzpatrick R, Grant A, Gray A, Johnston L, Maclennan G, Morris R, Murray D (2011) Patellar resurfacing in total knee replacement: five-year clinical and economic results of a large randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(16):1473–1481

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chau R, Gulati A, Pandit H, Beard DJ, Price AJ, Dodd CA, Gill HS, Murray DW (2009) Tibial component overhang following unicompartmental knee replacement—does it matter? Knee 16(5):310–313

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Creamer P, Lethbridge-Cejku M, Hochberg MC (1998) Where does it hurt? Pain localization in osteoarthritis of the knee. Osteoarthr Cartil 6(5):318–323

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 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(1):63–69

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Deschamps G, Chol C (2011) Fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Patients’ selection and operative technique. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 97(6):648–661

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Goodfellow J, O’Connor J, Dodd CA, Murray D (2006) Unicompartmental arthroplasty with the Oxford knee, 1st edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  12. Han I, Chang CB, Lee S, Lee MC, Seong SC, Kim TK (2005) Correlation of the condition of the patellar articular cartilage and patellofemoral symptoms and function in osteoarthritic patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87(8):1081–1084

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hernigou P, Deschamps G (2002) Patellar impingement following unicompartmental arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-A(7):1132–1137

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Heyse TJ, Khefacha A, Peersman G, Cartier P (2012) Survivorship of UKA in the middle-aged. Knee 19(5):585–591

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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):440–444

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Inaba Y, Numazaki S, Koshino T, Saito T (2003) Provoked anterior knee pain in medial osteoarthritis of the knee. Knee 10(4):351–355

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the knee society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:13–14

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Munk S, Odgaard A, Madsen F, Dalsgaard J, Jorn LP, Langhoff O, Jepsen CF, Hansen TB (2011) Preoperative lateral subluxation of the patella is a predictor of poor early outcome of Oxford phase-III medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 82(5):582–588

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Murray DW, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, Pandit H, Beard DJ, Carr AJ, Dawson J (2007) The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(8):1010–1014

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Pandit H, Jenkins C, Gill HS, Barker K, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2011) Minimally invasive Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee replacement: results of 1,000 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(2):198–204

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Pandit H, Jenkins C, Gill HS, Smith G, Price AJ, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2011) Unnecessary contraindications for mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(5):622–628

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Pynsent PB, Adams DJ, Disney SP (2005) The Oxford hip and knee outcome questionnaires for arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87(2):241–248

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Schindler OS, Scott WN, Scuderi GR (2010) The practice of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the United Kingdom. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 18(3):312–319

    Google Scholar 

  25. Tegner Y, Lysholm J (1985) Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 198:43–49

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Thompson LR, Boudreau R, Hannon MJ, Newman AB, Chu CR, Jansen M, Nevitt MC, Kwoh CK (2009) The knee pain map: reliability of a method to identify knee pain location and pattern. Arthritis Rheum 61(6):725–731

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tria A (2011) Classical patient selection for unicondylar knee arthroplasty. In: Berend KR, Cushner FD (eds) Partial knee arthroplasty: techniques for optimal outcomes. Elsevier Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 11–17

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Mrs Jo Brown, Ms Jenny Ferris and Mrs Barbara Marks for their assistance with the collection of data and the assembly of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, University of Oxford, Windmill Road, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK

    A. D. Liddle, H. Pandit, C. Jenkins, A. J. Price, C. A. F. Dodd, H. S. Gill & D. W. Murray

Authors
  1. A. D. Liddle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. Pandit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Jenkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. J. Price
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C. A. F. Dodd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. H. S. Gill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. D. W. Murray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. W. Murray.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Liddle, A.D., Pandit, H., Jenkins, C. et al. Preoperative pain location is a poor predictor of outcome after Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at 1 and 5 years. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21, 2421–2426 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-2211-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-2211-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation