Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effect of gender, age, BMI and Kellgren–Lawrence grade on functional outcome after Physica ZUK medial unicompartmental knee replacement

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Several factors influence the outcome of unicompartmental knee replacements. This study investigates the correlation of specific preoperative patient variables with postoperative functional outcomes—measured with the American Knee Society Knee (KS-KS) and Function Scores (KS-FS), as well as the difference in knee flexion pre- and postoperatively.

Methods

In a retrospective study of 242 patients who underwent a medial Physica ZUK unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR), the American KS-KS, KS-FS as well as knee flexion were analyzed preoperatively and at 2-year follow-up. The absolute scores and improvement in scores were calculated per subgroup for gender, age, body mass index (BMI) and Kellgren–Lawrence (KL) radiological grade and compared between the subgroups.

Results

All groups had a significant improvement in range of flexion, KS-KS and KS-FS. Female patients had lower preoperative scores and significantly larger improvement in knee flexion and KS-FS. Age does not seem to be associated with the postoperative functional outcome. Patients with a BMI of 30 or higher had a lower postoperative KS-KS and KS-FS as well as knee flexion. Patients with KL grade IV changes had larger gain in KS-KS compared to patients with grade III.

Conclusion

Overall, KS-KS, KS-FS and knee flexion improve significantly 2 years following a Physica ZUK UKR in all groups. Although excellent results were found in patients with a BMI of 30 or higher, a decrease in BMI was associated with an increase in functional outcome. KL IV grade preoperatively was associated with a better KS-KS improvement compared to the KL III group 2 years postoperatively. This information can aid surgeons in patient selection and to counsel patients on outcomes.

Evidence level

III.

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. Baker P, Jameson S, Critchley R, Reed M, Gregg P, Deehan D (2013) Center and surgeon volume influence the revision rate following unicondylar knee replacement an analysis of 23,400 medial cemented unicondylar knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95:702–709

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bedson J, Croft PR (2008) The discordance between clinical and radiographic knee osteoarthritis: a systematic search and summary of the literature. BMC Musculoskel Dis 9:211–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Berend KR, Lombardi AV, Mallory TH, Adams JB, Groseth KL (2005) Early failure of minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is associated with obesity. Clin Orthop 26:60–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bonutti PM, Goddard MS, Zywiel MG, Khanuja HS, Johnson AJ, Mont MA (2011) Outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty stratified by body mass index. J Arthroplasty 26:1149–1153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bruce DJ, Hassaballa M, Robinson JR, Porteous AJ, Murray JR, Newman JH (2020) Minimum 10-year outcomes of a fixed bearing all-polyethylene unicompartmental knee arthroplasty used to treat medial osteoarthritis. Knee 27:1018–1027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Burn E, Liddle AD, Hamilton TW, Judge A, Pandit HG, Murray DW et al (2018) Cost-effectiveness of unicompartmental compared with total knee replacement: a population-based study using data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. BMJ Open 8:211–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Burn E, Sanchez-Santos MT, Pandit HG, Hamilton TW, Liddle AD, Murray DW et al (2018) Ten-year patient-reported outcomes following total and minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a propensity score-matched cohort analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26:1455–1464

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cavaignac E, Lafontan V, Reina N, Pailhé R, Warmy M, Laffosse JM et al (2013) Obesity has no adverse effect on the outcome of unicompartmental knee replacement at a minimum follow-up of seven years. Bone Joint J 95 B:1064–1068

  9. Drager J, Hart A, Khalil JA, Zukor DJ, Bergeron SG, Antoniou J (2016) Shorter hospital stay and lower 30-day readmission after unicondylar knee arthroplasty compared to total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 31:356–361

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Fabre-Aubrespy M, Ollivier M, Pesenti S, Parratte S, Argenson JN (2016) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients older than 75 results in better clinical outcomes and similar survivorship compared to total knee arthroplasty. A matched controlled study J Arthroplasty 31:2668–2671

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fokin A, Heekin D (2017) Return of quadriceps strength after primary total knee arthroplasty with single-radius knee system: five-year follow-up. J Surg Orthop Adv 26:211–215

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gill JR, Nicolai P (2019) Clinical results and 12-year survivorship of the Physica ZUK unicompartmental knee replacement. Knee 26:750–758

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Heck DA, Marmor L, Gibson A, Rougraff BT (1993) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. a multicenter investigation with long-term follow-up evaluation. Clin Orthop

  14. Insall JN, Dorr DR, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Knee society score rationale. Clin Orthop 26:13–14

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kijowski R, Blankenbaker D, Stanton P, Fine J, De Smet A (2006) Arthroscopic validation of radiographic grading scales of osteoarthritis of the tibiofemoral joint. Am J Roentgenol 187:794–799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kleijn LLA, Van Hemert WLW, Meijers WGH, Kester ADM, Lisowski L, Grimm B et al (2007) Functional improvement after unicompartmental knee replacement: a follow-up study with a performance based knee test. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15:1187–1193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Knifsund J, Hatakka J, Keemu H, Mäkelä K, Koivisto M, Niinimäki T (2017) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasties are performed on the patients with radiologically too mild osteoarthritis. Scand J Surg 106:338–341

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kozinn SC, Scott R (1989) Unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am, vol 149–153

  19. Kuipers BM, Kollen BJ, Kaijser Bots PC, Burger BJ, van Raay JJAM, Tulp NJA et al (2010) Factors associated with reduced early survival in the Oxford phase III medial unicompartment knee replacement. Knee 17:48–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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 25:3354–3359

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Liddle AD, Judge A, Pandit H, Murray DW (2014) Adverse outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee replacement in 101330 matched patients: a study of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. The Lancet 384:1437–1445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Liddle AD, Judge A, Pandit H, Murray DW (2014) Determinants of revision and functional outcome following unicompartmental knee replacement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage Res Soc 22:1241–1250

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Lum ZC, Lombardi AV, Hurst JM, Morris MJ, Adams JB, Berend KR (2016) Early outcomes of twin-peg mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compared with primary total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 98-B:28–33

  24. Lustig S, Barba N, Magnussen RA, Servien E, Demey G, Neyret P (2012) The effect of gender on outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee 19:176–179

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Molloy J, Kennedy J, Jenkins C, Mellon S, Dodd C, Murray D (2019) Obesity should not be considered a contraindication to medial Oxford UKA: long-term patient-reported outcomes and implant survival in 1000 knees. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27:2259–2265

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Murray DW, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, Pandit H, Beard DJ, Carr AJ et al (2007) The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:1010–1014

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Murray DW, Pandit H, Weston-Simons JS, Jenkins C, Gill HS, Lombardi AV et al (2013) Does body mass index affect the outcome of unicompartmental knee replacement? Knee 20:461–465

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. National Joint Registry for England WNI, the IoM. 16th Annual Report (2019).

  29. Pandit H, Gulati A, Jenkins C, Barker K, Price AJ, Dodd CAF et al (2011) Unicompartmental knee replacement for patients with partial thickness cartilage loss in the affected compartment. Knee 18:168–171

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Price AJ, Dodd CAF, Svard UGC, Murray DW (2005) Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients younger and older than 60 years of age. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:1488–1492

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Price AJ, Webb J, Topf H, Dodd CAF, Goodfellow JW, Murray DW (2001) Rapid recovery after Oxford unicompartmental arthroplasty through a short incision. J Arthroplasty 16:970–976

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Schwab PE, Lavand’homme P, Yombi JC, Thienpont E (2015) Lower blood loss after unicompartmental than total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:3494–3500

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Siman H, Kamath AF, Carrillo N, Harmsen WS, Pagnano MW, Sierra RJ (2017) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty vs total knee arthroplasty for medial compartment arthritis in patients older than 75 years: comparable reoperation, revision, and complication rates. J Arthroplasty 32:1792–1797

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Sisto DJ, Blazina ME, Heskiaoff D, Hirsh LC (1993) Unicompartment arthroplasty for osteoarthrosis of the knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res (286):149–153

  36. Smith JRA, Robinson JR, Porteous AJ, Murray JRD, Hassaballa MA, Artz N et al (2014) Fixed bearing lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty-Short to midterm survivorship and knee scores for 101 prostheses. Knee 21:843–847

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kärrholm J, Rogmark C, Naucler E, Nåtman J, Vinblad J, Mohaddes M, Rolfson Ola. Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register annual report 2015.

  38. Thompson SAJ, Liabaud B, Nellans KW, Geller JA (2013) Factors associated with poor outcomes following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Redefining the “classic” indications for surgery. J Arthroplasty 28:1561–1564

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Wiik AV, Aqil A, Tankard S, Amis AA, Cobb JP (2015) Downhill walking gait pattern discriminates between types of knee arthroplasty: improved physiological knee functionality in UKA versus TKA. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:1748–1755

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Woo YL, Chen YQJ, Lai MC, Tay KJD, Chia SL, Lo NN et al (2017) Does obesity influence early outcome of fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty? J Orthop Surg Res 25:211–215

    Google Scholar 

  41. Xing Z, Katz J, Jiranek W (2012) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: factors influencing the outcome. J Knee Surg 25:369–373

  42. Xu S, Lim WAJ, Chen JY, Lo NN, Chia SL, Tay DKJ et al (2019) The influence of obesity on clinical outcomes of fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 101-B:213–220

  43. Zuiderbaan HA, van der List JP, Khamaisy S, Nawabi DH, Thein R, Ishmael C et al (2017) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty: Which type of artificial joint do patients forget? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25:681–686

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

All authors were fully involved in the study and preparation of the manuscript, and the material within has not been and will not be submitted for publication elsewhere.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Jef Mast

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, West Suffolk Trust Hospital, Suffolk, IP33 2QZ, UK

    Frederique Vanermen & Paul Nicolai

  3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Antwerp University Hospital (UZA), Antwerp, Belgium

    Arne Van de Vyver

Authors
  1. Jef Mast
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Frederique Vanermen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Arne Van de Vyver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paul Nicolai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frederique Vanermen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Jef Mast and Frederique Vanermen are co-first authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mast, J., Vanermen, F., Van de Vyver, A. et al. The effect of gender, age, BMI and Kellgren–Lawrence grade on functional outcome after Physica ZUK medial unicompartmental knee replacement. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 33, 811–818 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-022-03202-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-022-03202-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation