Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 471, Issue 8, pp 2629–2640 | Cite as

Better Quality of Life After Medial Versus Lateral Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty

Clinical Research

Abstract

Background

The number of unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKAs) is growing worldwide. Because lateral UKAs are performed much less frequently than medial UKAs, the limited information leaves unclear whether UKAs have comparable survival and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of the lateral UKA to medial UKAs.

Questions/purposes

We therefore compared the (1) survivorship and (2) HRQoL after lateral versus medial cemented mobile-bearing UKAs and (3) determined whether there is an association of survival to modifications of surgical technique in one of three phases.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 558 patients who underwent mobile-bearing UKAs from 2002 to 2009. From the records we determined revision of the joint for any reason and revision for aseptic loosening. Patients reported their physical function, pain, and stiffness as measured by the WOMAC, SF-36 physical-component summary (PCS), and Lequesne knee score. Information regarding implant survival was collected for 93% of the patients. We analyzed the patients separately by three phases based on surgical changes associated with each phase (1: initial technique; 2: improved cementing; 3: additional bone resection to ensure backward sliding of the inlay without impingement). The minimum followup was 2.1 years (mean, 6 years; range, 2.1–9.8 years).

Results

Implant survival was 88% at 9 years. We found similar implant survival rates for medial (90%) and lateral UKAs (83%). In all HRQoL measures, patients receiving a medial UKA had better mean scores compared with patients who had a lateral UKA: WOMAC physical function (23 versus 34, respectively) and pain (21 versus 34) and SF-36 PCS (41 versus 38). There were no survival differences by surgical phase.

Conclusions

Our observations suggest a medial UKA is associated with superior HRQoL when compared with a lateral UKA, although implant survival is similar.

Level of Evidence

Level III, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

References

  1. 1.
    Altman DG, Bland JM. Statistics notes. Units of analysis. BMJ. 1997;314:1874.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, Gotzsche PC, Lang T. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:663–694.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Altuntas AO, Alsop H, Cobb JP. Early results of a domed tibia, mobile bearing lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty from an independent centre. Knee. 2012 Dec 28. pii: S0968-0160(12)00230-X. doi:  10.1016/j.knee.2012.11.008 [Epub ahead of print].
  4. 4.
    Arastu MH, Vijayaraghavan J, Chissel H, Hull JB, Newmann JH, Robinson JR. Early failure of a mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee replacement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009;17:1178–1183.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Argenson JN, Parratte S, Bertani A, Flecher X, Aubaniac JM. Long-term results with a lateral unicondylar replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:2686–2693.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ashraf T, Newman JH, Evans RL, Ackroyd CE. Lateral unicompartmental knee replacement survivorship and clinical experience over 21 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84:1126–1130.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Annual Report. 2009. Adelaide, Australia: Australian Orthopaedic Association. Available at: https://aoanjrr.dmac.adelaide.edu.au/de/annual-reports-2009. Accessed March 13, 2013.
  8. 8.
    Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Annual Report. 2012. Adelaide, Australia: Australian Orthopaedic Association. Available at: https://aoanjrr.dmac.adelaide.edu.au/de/annual-reports-2012. Accessed March 13, 2013.
  9. 9.
    Barret M, Wilson E, Whalen D. Summary 2007 HCUP Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) Comparison Report. Report # 2010-03. Washington, DC, USA: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; September 9, 2010. HCUP Method Series Report.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988;15:1833–1840.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bullinger M. German translation and psychometric testing of the SF-36 Health Survey: preliminary results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. Soc Sci Med. 1995;41:1359–1366.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc; 1988.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ethgen O, Bruyere O, Richy F, Dardennes C, Reginster JY. Health-related quality of life in total hip and total knee arthroplasty. A qualitative and systematic review of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:963–974.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fitz W, Scott RD. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. In: Scott WN, ed. Insall & Scott Surgery of the Knee. Philadelphia, PA, USA: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone; 2012:988–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Geller JA, Yoon RS, McKean J, Macaulay W. Does a high-flexion design affect early outcome of medial unicondylar knee arthroplasty? Clinical comparison at 2 years. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:1468–1474.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gunther TV, Murray DW, Miller R, Wallace AJ, Carr AJ, O’Connor JJ, McLardy-Smith P, Goodfellow J. Lateral unicompartmental arthroplasty with the Oxford meniscal knee. Knee. 1996;3:33–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heyse TJ, Khefacha A, Peersman G, Cartier P. Survivorship of UKA in the middle-aged. Knee. 2012;19:585–591.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Heyse TJ, Tibesku CO. Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a review. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2010;130:1539–1548.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    König DP, Popken F, Herzberg W, Eysel P. The minimally invasive unicompartimental knee system ‘Preservation.’ First clinical results and analysis of complications. Orthopade. 2004;33:1284–1289.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lequesne MG, Mery C, Samson M, Gerard P. Indexes of severity for osteoarthritis of the hip and knee. Validation—value in comparison with other assessment tests. Scand J Rheumatol Suppl. 1987;65:85–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lisowski LA, van den Bekerom MP, Pilot P, van Dijk CN, Lisowski AE. Oxford Phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: medium-term results of a minimally invasive surgical procedure. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19:277–284.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ludwig FJ, Melzer C, Grimmig H, Daalmann HH. [Cross cultural adaptation of the lequesne algofunctional indices for German speaking patients with osteoarthritis of the hip and the knee] [in German]. Rehabilitation (Stuttg). 2002;41:249–257.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lustig S, Elguindy A, Servien E, Fary C, Munini E, Demey G, Neyret P. 5- to 16-year follow-up of 54 consecutive lateral unicondylar knee arthroplasties with a fixed-all polyethylene bearing. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:1318–1325.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lustig S, Parratte S, Magnussen RA, Argenson JN, Neyret P. Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty relieves pain and improves function in posttraumatic osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:69–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lyons MC, Macdonald SJ, Somerville LE, Naudie DD, McCalden RW. Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty database analysis: is there a winner? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:84–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mariani EM, Bourne MH, Jackson RT, Jackson ST, Jones P. Early failure of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(Suppl 2):81–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Marmor L. Lateral compartment arthroplasty of the knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1984;186:115–121.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    National Joint Registry for England and Wales. 9th Annual Report 2012. Hernel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, UK: NJR Centre; 2012.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    NIH Consensus Panel. NIH Consensus Statement on Total Knee Replacement Dec 8–10, 2003. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:1328–1335.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    O’Rourke MR, Gardner JJ, Callaghan JJ, Liu SS, Goetz DD, Vittetoe DA, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC. The John Insall Award: unicompartmental knee replacement: a minimum twenty-one-year followup, end-result study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;440:27–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ohdera T, Tokunaga J, Kobayashi A. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for lateral gonarthrosis: midterm results. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:196–200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pennington DW, Swienckowski JJ, Lutes WB, Drake GN. Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: survivorship and technical considerations at an average follow-up of 12.4 years. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21:13–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sackett DL, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W. Evidence-based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. New York, NY, USA: Churchill Livingstone; 1997.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sah AP, Scott RD. Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty through a medial approach. Study with an average five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:1948–1954.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Scott RD. Lateral unicompartmental replacement: a road less traveled. Orthopedics. 2005;28:983–984.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Scott RD, Santore RF. Unicondylar unicompartmental replacement for osteoarthritis of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1981;63:536–544.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stucki G, Meier D, Stucki S, Michel BA, Tyndall AG, Dick W, Theiler R. [Evaluation of a German version of WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities) Arthrosis Index] [in German]. Z Rheumatol. 1996;55:40–49.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M, Bayliss MS, McHorney CA, Rogers WH, Raczek A. Comparison of methods for the scoring and statistical analysis of SF-36 health profile and summary measures: summary of results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care. 1995;33(Suppl):AS264–AS279.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Whiteside LA. Making your next unicompartmental knee arthroplasty last: three keys to success. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20(Suppl 2):2–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Xing Z, Katz J, Jiranek W. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: factors influencing the outcome. J Knee Surg. 2012;25:369–374.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity of Schleswig-Holstein Medical CenterKielGermany
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryAsklepios Westklinikum HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations