Abstract
Background
UKA necessitates a learning period. From this point of view, it would be logical to prefer the design that tolerates suboptimal tibial rotations better, especially for inexperienced surgeons. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the clinical and radiological results of mobile-bearing and fix-bearing UKA designs in case of suboptimal tibial rotations.
Methods
A retrospective case–control evaluation was made of all the patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis, treated between January 2011 and January 2015. 324 patients ideal femoral rotation were enrolled in the study. 153 patients (Group 1) were treated with fix-bearing design with a mean 28.8 ± 11.3 month follow-up and 171 patients (Group 2) were treated with mobile-bearing design with a 31 ± 14.3 month follow-up. Each patient in groups was subdivided into (A): optimal tibial rotation, (B): external rotation of tibial component > 5°, (C): internal rotation of tibial component > 5° subgroups. WOMAC and KSS scores of each patient at preoperative and postoperative final control were compared between groups and subgroups.
Results
No significant differences were determined between the groups in terms of mean follow-up time (p = 0.0612), preoperative WOMAC, and KSS scores (p = 0.754 and p = 0.832, respectively). No significant differences were determined between subgroups 1A and 2A in terms of WOMAC and KSS scores at the final evaluation (p = 0.314 and p = 0.546, respectively). A significant difference was determined between subgroups 1B and 2B in terms of WOMAC and KSS scores (p = 0.021 and p = 0.012, respectively). In addition, the difference between subgroups 1C and 2C was significant (p = 0.047 and p = 0.034, respectively) at the final evaluation.
Conclusion
Both mobile- and fix-bearing designs are beneficial in the treatment of medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee. However, in case of both tibial internal or external suboptimal tibial rotations, fix-bearing design have better results compared to mobile-bearing design.
Study design
Level III retrospective comparative clinical study.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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 15:356–360
Scott CEH, Wade FA, MacDonald D, Nutton RW (2018) Ten-year survival and patient-reported outcomes of a medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty incorporating an all-polyethylene tibial component. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138:719–729
Tang H, Zhao L, Yan H, Jin D, Su X (2012) Mid-term effectiveness of Oxford unicompartmental knee system phase III for medial unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi 26:17–20
Kaya Bicer E, Servien E, Lustig S, Demey G, Ait Si Selmi T, Neyret P (2010) Sagittal flexion angle of the femoral component in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is it same for both medial and lateral UKAs? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:928–933
Kim JG, Kasat NS, Bae JH, Kim SJ, Oh SM, Lim HC (2012) The radiological parameters correlated with the alignment of the femoral component after Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Jt Surg Br 94:1499–1505
Bert JM (1998) 10-year survivorship of metal-backed, unicompartmental arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 13:901–905
Cartier P, Sanouiller JL, Grelsamer RP (1996) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty surgery. 10-year minimum follow-up period. J Arthroplast 11:782e788
Zhang Q, Zhang Q, Guo W, Liu Z, Cheng L, Yue D, Zhang N (2014) The learning curve for minimally invasive Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: cumulative summation test for learning curve (LC-CUSUM). J Orthop Surg Res 6(9):81
Dionigi G, Bacuzzi A, Boni L, Rovera F, Dionigi R (2008) What is the learning curve for intraoperative neuromonitoring in thyroid surgery? Int J Surg 6:7–12
Walton R, Theodorides A, Molloy A, Melling D (2012) Is there a learning curve in foot and ankle surgery? Foot Ankle Surg 18:62–65
Peersman G, Stuyts B, Vandenlangenbergh T, Cartier P, Fennema P (2015) Fixed- versus mobile-bearing UKA: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:3296–3305
Peersman G, Slane J, Vuylsteke P, Fuchs-Winkelmann S, Dworschak P, Heyse T, Scheys L (2017) Kinematics of mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compared to native: results from an in vitro study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137:1557–1563
Akagi M, Matsusue Y, Mata T, Asada Y, Horiguchi M, Iida H, Nakamura T (1999) Effect of rotational alignment on patellar tracking in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 366:155–163
Akagi M, Mori S, Nishimura S, Nishimura A, Asano T, Hamanishi C (2005) Variability of extraarticular tibial rotation references for total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 436:172–176
Kang KT, Son J, Baek C, Kwon OR, Koh YG (2018) Femoral component alignment in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty leads to biomechanical change in contact stress and collateral ligament force in knee joint. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138:563–572
Matziolis G, Mueller T, Layher F, Wagner A (2018) The femoral component alignment resulting from spacer block technique is not worse than after intramedullary guided technique in medial unicompartimental knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138:865–870
Iriberri I, Aragon JF (2014) Alignment of the tibial component of the unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, assessed in the axial view by CT scan: does it in uence the outcome? Knee 21:1269–1274
Campbell DG, Johnson LJ, West SC (2006) Multiparameter quantitative computer-assisted tomography assessment of uni-compartmental knee arthroplasties. ANZ J Surg 76:782–787
Kawahara S, Okazaki K, Matsuda S, Mitsuyasu H, Nakahara H, Okamoto S, Iwamoto Y (2014) Medial sixth of the patellar tendon at the tibial attachment is useful for the anterior reference in rotational alignment of the tibial component. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22:1070–1075
Servien E, Fary C, Lustig S, Demey G, Saffarini M, Chomel S, Neyret P (2011) Tibial component rotation assessment using CT scan in medial and lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 97:272–275
Shakespeare D, Ledger M, Kinzel V (2005) The influence of the tibial sagittal cut on component position in the Oxford knee. Knee 12:169–176
Goodfellow J (2006) Unicompartmental arthroplasty with the Oxford knee. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Gulati A, Pandit H, Jenkins C, Chao R, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2009) The effect of leg alignment on the outcome ofunicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Jt Surg Br 91:469
Bell SW, Young P, Drury C, Smith J, Anthony I, Jones B, Blyth M, McLean A (2014) Component rotational alignment in unexplainedpainful primary total knee arthroplasty Knee 21:272
Small SR, Berend ME, Rogge RD, Archer DB, Kingman AL, Ritter MA (2013) Tibial loading after UKA: evaluation oftibial slope, resection depth, medial shift and component rotation. J Arthroplast 28:179
Funding
There is no funding source for the current study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ozcan, C., Simsek, M.E., Tahta, M. et al. Fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty tolerates higher variance in tibial implant rotation than mobile-bearing designs. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138, 1463–1469 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-018-3005-y
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-018-3005-y