Advertisement

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

, Volume 21, Issue 11, pp 2462–2467 | Cite as

Minimum thickness of all-poly tibial component unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients younger than 60 years does not increase revision rate for aseptic loosening

  • Danilo BruniEmail author
  • Ibrahim Akkawi
  • Francesco Iacono
  • Giovanni Francesco Raspugli
  • Michele Gagliardi
  • Marco Nitri
  • Alberto Grassi
  • Stefano Zaffagnini
  • Simone Bignozzi
  • Maurilio Marcacci
Knee

Abstract

Purpose

Management of unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis in middle-aged patients is a challenging problem. Despite its functional advantages, UKA still raises questions concerning implant survivorship and an increased revision risk for aseptic loosening mainly due to polyethylene wear. The main purpose of the present study was to investigate whether using the minimum thickness of an all-poly tibial UKA in patients under 60 years of age increases the revision rate for aseptic loosening. The secondary purposes were to compare implant survivorship with data reported in literature and to prospectively evaluate the clinical outcome in this selected group of patients.

Methods

Thirty-three consecutive patients under 60 years of age at the time of surgery with isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis underwent a unilateral medial UKA from 2002 to 2005 and were prospectively followed. A Kaplan–Meier analysis was performed to determine the 8-year implant survivorship with revision for any reason as endpoint. KSS, WOMAC, Tegner–Lysholm, Tegner and VAS scores were prospectively evaluated at 3- to 8-year follow-up. Weight-bearing radiographs were collected pre-operatively and at 3- to 8-year follow-up to prospectively evaluate hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA), femoro-tibial angle (FTA), tibial plateau angle and posterior tibial slope.

Results

The 8-year Kaplan–Meier survivorship with revision for any reason as endpoint was 83 %. Five failures were reported, and in 3 patients’ aseptic loosening of the tibial component was the reason for failure. All clinical scores significantly improved at 3-year follow-up, and no further modification was demonstrated up to 8-year follow-up. HKA, FTA and TPA had a significant difference at 3-year follow-up with respect to pre-operative values (p < 0.01) and no further difference at 8-year follow-up was found.

Conclusions

The present study failed to demonstrate an increased revision rate for aseptic loosening of the implant in patients under 60 years of age, who received an all-poly tibial component UKA using the minimum thickness of the implant in all cases.

Level of evidence

Case series, Level IV.

Keywords

Unicompartmental osteoarthritis Middle-aged patients All-poly tibial UKA Polyethylene wear Implant survivorship 

References

  1. 1.
    Argenson JN, Chevrol-Benkeddache Y, Aubaniac JM (2002) Modern unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cement: a three to ten year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84:2235–2239PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Argenson JN, Parratte S, Flecher X, Aubaniac JM (2007) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: technique through a mini-incision. Clin Orthop Relat Res 464:32–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bhattacharya R, Scott CE, Morris HE, Wade F, Nutton RW (2011) Survivorship and patient satisfaction of a fixed bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty incorporating an all-polyethylene tibial component. Knee 19(4):348–351PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Biswal S, Brighton RW (2009) Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cemented, fixed-bearing prosthesis using minimally invasive surgery. J Arthroplasty 25(5):721–727PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Briggs KK, Steadman JR, Hay CJ, Hines SL (2009) Lysholm score and Tegner activity level in individuals with normal knees. Am J Sports Med 37(5):898–901PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bruni D, Iacono F, Raspugli G, Zaffagnini S, Marcacci M (2012) Is unicompartmental arthroplasty an acceptable option for spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee? Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:1442–1451PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bruni D, Iacono F, Russo A, Zaffagnini S, Muccioli GMM, Bignozzi S, Bragonzoni L, Marcacci M (2009) Minimally invasive unicompartmental knee replacement: retrospective clinical and radiographic evaluation of 83 patients. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18(6):710–717PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cartier P, Khefacha A, Sanouiller JL, Frederick K (2007) Unicondylar knee arthroplasty in middle-aged patients: a minimum 5-year follow-up. Orthopedics 30(8 Suppl):62–65PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Choy WS, Kim KJ, Lee SK, Yang DS, Lee NK (2011) Mid-term results of oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Surg 3(3):178–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clement ND, Duckworth AD, MacKenzie SP, Nie YX, Tiemessen CH (2012) Medium-term results of Oxford phase-3 medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 20(2):157–161Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Collier MB, Eickmann TH, Sukezaki F, McAuley JP, Engh GA (2006) Patient, implant, and alignment factors associated with revision of medial compartment unicondylar arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 21(6 suppl 2):108–115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Collier MB, Engh CA Jr, McAuley JP, Engh GA (2007) Factors associated with the loss of thickness of polyethylene tibial bearings after knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(6):1306–1314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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):63–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Egidy CC, Sherman SL, Macdessi SJ, Cross MB, Windsor RE (2012) Long-term survivorship of a unicondylar knee replacement—a case report. Knee 19(6):944–947PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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):861–867PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goodfellow J, O’Connor J, Dodd C (2006) Unicompartmental arthroplasty with the Oxford knee. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hanssen AD, Stuart MJ, Scott RD, Scuderi GR (2001) Surgical options for the middle-aged patient with osteoarthritis of the knee joint. Instr Course Lect 50:499–511PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hernigou P, Deschamps G (2004) Alignment influences wear in the knee after medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 423:161–165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Heyse TJ, Khefacha A, Peersman G, Cartier P (2012) Survivorship of UKA in the middle-aged. Knee 19(5):585–591PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hopgood P, Martin CP, Rae PJ (2004) The effect of tibial implant size on post-operative alignment following medial unicompartmental knee replacement. Knee 11:385–388PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:13–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kennedy WR, White RP (1987) Unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee: postoperative alignment and its influence on overall results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 221:278–285PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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(4):356–360PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Koskinen E, Paavolainen P, Eskelinen A, Harilainen A, Sandelin J, Ylinen P, Tallroth K, Remes V (2008) Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with Miller-Galante II prosthesis: mid-term clinical and radiographic results. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 129(5):617–624PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kuipers BM, Kollen BJ, Bots PC, Burger BJ, van Raay JJ, Tulp NJ, Verheyen CC (2010) Factors associated with reduced early survival in the Oxford phase III medial unicompartment knee replacement. Knee 17(1):48–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Larsson SE, Larsson S, Lundkvist S (1988) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 232:174–181PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mariani EM, Bourne MH, Jackson RT, Jackson ST, Jones P (2007) Early failure of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 22(6 Suppl 2):81–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Marmor L (1988) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Ten- to 13-year follow-up study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 226:14–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    McConnell S, Kolopack P, Davis AM (2001) The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC): a review of its utility and measurement properties. Arthritis Rheum 45(5):453–461PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pandit H, Jenkins C, Barker K (2006) The Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement using a minimally-invasive approach. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88:54–60PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Parratte S, Argenson JN, Pearce O, Pauly V, Auquier P, Aubaniac JM (2009) Medial unicompartmental knee replacement in the under-50s. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91(3):351–356PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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(10):1968–1973PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Price AJ, Dodd CA, Svard UG, Murray DW (2005) Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients younger and older than 60 years of age. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87(11):1488–1492PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ridgeway SR, McAuley JP, Ammeen DJ, Engh GA (2002) The effect of alignment of the knee on the outcome of unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84(3):351–355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    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(4):365–372PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stukenborg-Colsman C, Wirth CJ, Lazovic D, Wefer A (2001) High tibial osteotomy versus unicompartmental joint replacement in unicompartmental knee joint osteoarthritis: 7–10-year follow-up prospective randomised study. Knee 8(3):187–194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tabor OB Jr, Tabor OB, Bernard M, Wan JY (2005) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: long-term success in middle-age and obese patients. J Surg Orthop Adv 14(2):59–63PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    W-Dahl A, Robertsson O, Lidgren L (2010) Surgery for knee osteoarthritis in younger patients. Acta Orthop 81(2):161–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wasielewski RC, Galante JO, Leighty RM, Natarajan RN, Rosenberg AG (1994) Wear patterns on retrieved polyethylene tibial inserts and their relationship to technical considerations during total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 299:31–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Weston-Simons JS, Pandit H, Jenkins C, Jackson WF, Price AJ, Gill HS, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2012) Outcome of combined unicompartmental knee replacement and combined or sequential anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a study of 52 cases with mean follow-up of five years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94(9):1216–1220PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Whiteside LA (2005) Making your next unicompartmental knee arthroplasty last: three keys to success. J Arthroplasty 20(4 Suppl 2):2–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Xing Z, Katz J, Jiranek W (2012) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: factors influencing the outcome. J Knee Surg 25(5):369–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Danilo Bruni
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ibrahim Akkawi
    • 1
  • Francesco Iacono
    • 1
  • Giovanni Francesco Raspugli
    • 1
  • Michele Gagliardi
    • 1
  • Marco Nitri
    • 1
  • Alberto Grassi
    • 1
  • Stefano Zaffagnini
    • 1
  • Simone Bignozzi
    • 1
  • Maurilio Marcacci
    • 1
  1. 1.Biomechanics and Technological Innovation Laboratory, Codivilla-Putti Research CenterBologna UniversityBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations