Skip to main content
Log in

Open wedge high tibial osteotomy (HTO) versus mobile bearing unicondylar medial joint replacement: five years results

  • Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Aim of this study was to compare clinical results after open wedge HTO (OW-HTO and medial unicondylar joint replacement (UKA) in patients aged between 55 and 65.

Materials and methods

Fifty-four patients aged between 55 and 65 years with medial OA and varus malalignement who had been treated by either OW-HTO or UKA could be included. Minimum follow up was 5 years. The HSS knee score and the KOOS were used to evaluate clinical outcome.

Results

There was no difference in the revision rate, the HSS knee score and the KOOS subscales Sports/Rec and ADL between the OW-HTO and UKA group. However, the KOOS subscales pain, Symptoms and QoL were significantly better in the UKA group compared to the OW-HTO.

Conclusions

The results of this study showed that 5 years after surgery patients after UKA had less residual pain and symptoms than patients after UKA. These advantages might result in a higher quality of life.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Amendola A (2003) The role of osteotomy in the multiplemligament injured knee. Arthroscopy 19(1):11–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Argenson JN, O’Connor JJ (1992) Polyethylene wear in meniscal knee replacement. A one to nine-year retrieval analysis of the Oxford knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br 74:228–232

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Borjesson M, Weidenhielm L, Mattsson E, Olsson E (2005) Gait and clinical measurements in patients with knee osteoarthritis after surgery: a prospective 5-year follow-up study. Knee 12:121–127

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brinkman JM, Lobenhoffer P, Agneskirchner JD, Staubli AE, Wymenga AB, van Heerwaarden RJ (2008) Osteotomies around the knee: patient selection, stability of fixation and bone healing in high tibial osteotomies. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90(12):1548–1557

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Broughton NS, Newman JH, Baily RAJ (1986) Unicompartmental replacement and high tibial osteotomy for osteoarthritis of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg 68-B:447–452

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cartier P, Sanouiller JL, Grelsamer RP (1996) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty surgery, 10-year minimum follow-up period. J Ar throplasty 11(7):782–788

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Collins NJ, Misra D, Felson DT, Crossley KM, Roos EM (2011) Measures of knee function: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Physical Function Short Form (KOOS-PS), Knee Outcome Survey Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADL), Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Activity Rating Scale (ARS), and Tegner Activity Score (TAS). Arthritis Care Res 63(Suppl 11):S208–S228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dettoni F, Maistrelli GL, Rossi P, Castoldi F, Stojimirovich D, Rossi R (2008) UKA versus HTO: clinical results at short term follow up. 75th AAOS Annual Meeting, 5–9 March 2008, San Francisco, CA

  9. Dettoni F, Bonasia DE, Castoldi F, Bruzzone M, Blonna D, Rossi R (2010) High tibial osteotomy versus unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for medial compartment arthrosis of the knee: a review of the literature. Iowa Orthop J 30:131–140

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Goodfellow JW, O’Connor J (1986) Clinical results of the Oxford knee: surface arthroplasty of the tibiofemoral joint with a meniscal bearing prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 205:21–42

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ivarsson I, Gillquist J (1991) Rehabilitation after high tibial osteotomy and unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 266:139–144

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Koskinen E, Paavolainen P, Eskelinen A, Pulkkinen P, Remes V (2007) Unicondylar knee replacement for primary osteoarthritis. A prospective follow-up study of 1819 patients from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Acta Ortho Scand 78(1):128–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. McAlindon TE, Bannuru RR, Sullivan MC, Arden NK, Berenbaum F, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Hawker GA, Henrotin Y, Hunter DJ, Kawaguchi H, Kwoh K, Lohmander S, Rannou F, Roos EM, Underwood M (2014) OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartil 22(3):363–388

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Murray DW, Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ (1998) The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. A ten-year survival study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80-B:983–989

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Nilsdotter AK, Toksvig-Larsen S, Roos EM (2009) A 5 year prospective study of patient-relevant outcomes after total knee replacement. Osteoarthr Cartil 17:601–606

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Petersen W, Metzlaff S, Forkel P, Achtnich A, Schmoranzer K, Hertel P (2013) [Unicompartimental joint (Oxford III) with mobile bearing : Minimally invasive implantation of a in the medial compartiment]. Oper Orthop Traumatol 25(5):505–517

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Petersen W, Wall A, Paulin T, Park HU, Heymann L (2014) Stability of two angular stable locking plates for open wedge high tibial osteotomy (HTO): tomoFix™ versus LOQTEQ® HTO plate. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134(10):1437–1442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Petersen W, Ellermann A, Zantop T, Rembitzki IV, Semsch H, Liebau C, Best R (2016) Biomechanical effect of unloader braces for medial osteoarthritis of the knee: a systematic review (CRD 42015026136). Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136:649–656 (e puplished)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Robertsson O, Dunbar M, Pehrsson T, Knutson K, Lidgren L (2000) Patient satisfaction after knee arthroplasty. A report on 27,372 knees operated on between 1981 and 1995 in Sweden. Acta Orthop Scand 71(3):262–267

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Roos EM, Lohmander LS (2003) Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:64

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Scott RD (2006) Three decades of experience with unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: mistakes made and lessons learned. Orthopedics 29:829–831

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sharma L, Song J, Felson DT, Cahue S, Shamiyeh E, Dunlop DD (2001) The role of knee alignment in disease progression and functional decline in knee osteoarthritis. JAMA 286:188–195

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Słupik A, Białoszewski D (2009) A comparative analysis of the clinical utility of the Staffelstein-score and the hospital for special surgery knee score (HSS) in monitoring physiotherapy of total knee replacement patients–preliminary study. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil 11(1):37–45

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Spahn G (2004) Complications in high tibial (medial opening wedge) osteotomy. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 124(10):649–653

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Staubli A, Hilaire A, Jacob C (2010) Evolution of open-wedge high-tibial osteotomy: experience with a special angular stable device for internal fixation without interposition material Int Orthop 34(2):167–172

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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 randomized study. Knee 8:187–194

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tilley S, Thomas N (2010) What knee scoring system. http://www.boneandjoint.org.uk/content/focus/what-knee-scoring-system. Accessed 05 May 2016

  28. van den Bekerom MP, Patt TW, Kleinhout MY, van der Vis HM, Albers GH (2008) Early complications after high tibial osteotomy: a comparison of two techniques. J Knee Surg. 21(1):68–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. van Raaij TM, Reijman M, Furlan AD, Verhaar JAN (2009) Total knee arthroplasty after high tibial osteotomy. A systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 10:88

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Weale AE, Newman JH (1994) Unicompartmental arthroplasty and high tibial osteotomy for osteoarthrosis of the knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res 302:134–137

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Weale AE, Halabi OA, Jones PW, White SH (2001) Perceptions of outcomes after unicompartmental and total knee replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res 382:143–153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wolf Petersen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Petersen, W., Metzlaff, S. Open wedge high tibial osteotomy (HTO) versus mobile bearing unicondylar medial joint replacement: five years results. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136, 983–989 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-016-2465-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-016-2465-1

Keywords

Navigation