Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The outcomes of mobile bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty on anteromedial osteoarthritis of the knee in the same patient

  • Knee Arthroplasty
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Compared to total knee arthroplasty (TKA), mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is associated with better outcomes, such as an earlier recovery, less postoperative pain, lower morbidity and mortality, and a greater “feel” of a normal knee. However, no study has reported the clinical outcomes in patients with the same stage of osteoarthritis of the knee. The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical outcomes, including the Joint Forgotten Score (JFS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Knee Society Score (KSS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and Kujala score after UKA on one knee and TKA on the opposite knee in the same patient.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively reviewed 32 patients with anteromedial OA who underwent mobile-bearing UKA in one knee and TKA in the other knee from 2009 to 2017. The JFS, OKS, KSS, KOOS, and Kujala scores were recorded and compared between the groups. Patients’ preferences between UKA and TKA and satisfaction were also recorded.

Results

The JFS and KOOS in the UKA group were significantly (p = 0.01, 0.01) higher than those in the TKA group: 97.01 ± 3.26 (89.58–100) vs. 94.92 ± 3.34 (87.80–100) and 91.16 ± 2.67 (85.25–96) vs. 89.24 ± 2.67 (84.50–94.71), respectively. The OKS, KSS, and Kujala scores were not different between the two groups (p = 0.82, 0.95, and 0.31, respectively) and neither was patient preference (p = 0.41) or satisfaction (p = 0.42). The mean follow-up was 48.36 months (range 24.00–96.00 months), during which there were no postoperative complications.

Conclusion

UKA was associated with a better JFS and KOOS but was otherwise comparable to TKA and may be preferable.

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. Murray D, O’Connor J, Goodfellow J (1998) The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a ten year survival study. J Bone Jt Surg (Br) 80:983–989. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.80b6.8177

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Price AJ, Waite JC, Svard U (2005) Long-term clinical results of the medial Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 435:171–180. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200506000-00024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Pongcharoen B, Ruetiwarangkoon C (2016) The comparison of anterior knee pain in severe and non severe arthritis of the lateral facet of the patellar following a mobile bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Springerplus 27(5):202. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-1914-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Petersen W, Metzlaff S (2016) Open wedge high tibial osteotomy (HTO) versus mobile bearing unicondylar medial joint replacement: five years results. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136(7):983–989. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-016-2465-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Maier MW, Kuhs F, Streit MR, Schuhmacher P, Walker T, Ewerbeck V, Gotterbarm T (2015) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients with full versus partial thickness cartilage loss (PTCL): equal in clinical outcome but with higher reoperation rate for patients with PTCL. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 135(8):1169–1175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2236-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Seo SS, Kim CW, Lee CR, Kwon YU, Oh M, Kim OG, Kim CK (2019) Long-term outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients requiring high flexion: an average 10-year follow-up study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 139(11):1633–1639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-019-03268-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gaillard R, Gaillard T, Denjean S, Lustig S (2017) No influence of obesity on survival of cementless, posterior-stabilised, rotating-platform implants. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137(12):1743–1750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2801-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. König A, Kirschner S, Walther M, Eisert M, Eulert J (1998) Hybrid total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 118(1–2):66–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004020050313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ranawat CS, Flynn WF Jr, Saddler S, Hansraj KK, Maynard MJ (1993) Long-term results of the total condylar knee arthroplasty. A 15-year survivorship study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 286:94–102

    Google Scholar 

  10. Vince KG, Insall JN, Kelly MA (1989) The total condylar prosthesis: 10- to 12-year results of a cemented knee replacement. J Bone Jt Surg (Br) 71(5):793–797

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Pagnano MW, Levy BA, Berry DJ (1999) Cemented all polyethylene tibial components in patients age 75 years and older. Clin Orthop Relat Res 367:73–80

    Google Scholar 

  12. Wohlrab D, Hube R, Zeh A, Hein W (2009) Clinical and radiological results of high flex total knee arthroplasty: a 5 year follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 129(1):21–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-008-0665-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Repicci JA, Eberle RW (1999) Minimally invasive surgical technique for unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J South Orthop Assoc Spring 8(1):20–27

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Heyse TJ, Efe T, Rumpf S, Schofer MD, Fuchs-Winkelmann S, Schmitt J, Hauk C (2011) Minimally invasive versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131(9):1287–1290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-011-1274-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Heyse TJ, El-Zayat BF, De Corte R, Chevalier Y, Scheys L, Innocenti B, Fuchs-Winkelmann S, Labey L (2014) UKA closely preserves natural knee kinematics in vitro. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22(8):1902–1910. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2752-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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(11):1557–1563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2794-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pongcharoen B, Ruetiwarangkoon C (2016) Does tranexamic acid reduce blood loss and transfusion rates in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty? J Orthop Sci 21(2):211–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jos.2015.12.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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. J Orthop Surg Res 9:81. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-014-0081-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Zhang Q, Zhang Q, Guo W, Liu Z, Cheng L, Zhu G (2015) No need for use of drainage after minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized, controlled trial. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 135(5):709–713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2192-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hauer G, Sadoghi P, Bernhardt GA, Wolf M, Ruckenstuhl P, Fink A, Leithner A, Gruber G (2020) Greater activity, better range of motion and higher quality of life following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a comparative case-control study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 140(2):231–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-019-03296-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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(5):719–729. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-018-2908-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Ahlback S (1968) Osteoarthrosis of the knee. A radiographic investigation. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh) 277(Suppl):7–72

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  24. Charoencholvanich K, Pongcharoen B (2005) Oxford knee score and SF-36: translation and reliability for use with total kneearthroscopy patients in Thailand. J Med Assoc Thai 88(9):1194–1202

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Behrend H, Giesinger K, Giesinger JM, Kuster MS (2012) The “forgotten joint” as the ultimate goal in joint arthroplasty: validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure. J Arthroplasty 27(3):430–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2011.06.035

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Roos EM, Lohmander LS (2003) The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:64. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-1-64

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Apivatgaroon A, Angthong C, Sanguanjit P, Chernchujit B (2016) The validity and reliability of the Thai version of the Kujala score for patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome. Disabil Rehabil 38(21):2161–2164. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2015.1114035

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lee WC, Kwan YH, Chong HC, Yeo SJ (2017) The minimal clinically important difference for Knee Society Clinical Rating System after total knee arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25(11):3354–3359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4208-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Dalury DF, Fisher DA, Adams MJ, Gonzales RA (2009) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compares favorably to total knee arthroplasty in the same patient. Orthopedics. https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20090401-21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Costa CR, Johnson AJ, Mont MA, Bonutti PM (2011) Unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty in the same patient. J Knee Surg 24:273–278

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Laurencin CT, Zelicof SB, Scott RD, Ewald FC (1991) Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in the same patient. A comparative study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 273:151–156

    Google Scholar 

  32. Pongcharoen B, Yakampor T, Charoencholvanish K (2013) Patellar tracking and anterior knee pain are similar after medial parapatellar and midvastus approaches in minimally invasive TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:1654–1660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2778-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Giesinger K, Hamilton DF, Jost B, Holzner B, Giesinger JM (2014) Comparative responsiveness of outcome measures for total knee arthroplasty. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 22(2):184–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2013.11.001

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Thomsen MG, Latifi R, Kallemose T, Barfod KW, Husted H, Troelsen A (2016) Good validity and reliability of the forgotten joint score in evaluating the outcome of total knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 87(3):280–285. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2016.1156934

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Reito A, Järvistö A, Jämsen E, Skyttä E, Remes V, Huhtala H, Niemeläinen M, Eskelinen A (2017) Translation and validation of the 12-item Oxford knee score for use in Finland. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 18(1):74. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-017-1405-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Scott CE, Murray RC, MacDonald DJ, Biant LC (2014) Staged bilateral total knee replacement: changes in expectations and outcomes between the first and second operations. Bone Jt J 96-B(6):752–758. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.96B6.32793

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Ozcan C, Simsek ME, Tahta M, Akkaya M, Gursoy S, Bozkurt M (2018) Fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty tolerates higher variance in tibial implant rotation than mobile-bearing designs. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138(10):1463–1469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-018-3005-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the aptness of patients in agreeing to take part in this research. Dr. XXX XXX reviewed the paper and came up with helpful comments.

Funding

This study was funded by the faculty of medicine, XXX University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Thammasat University, 95 Moo 8, Paholyotin Road, Khlong Nueng, Khlong Luang, Pathumthani, 12120, Thailand

    Boonchana Pongcharoen & Jitisak Timjang

Authors
  1. Boonchana Pongcharoen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jitisak Timjang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Boonchana Pongcharoen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the institution’s IRB.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pongcharoen, B., Timjang, J. The outcomes of mobile bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty on anteromedial osteoarthritis of the knee in the same patient. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 140, 1783–1790 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03527-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03527-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation