Abstract
Purpose
Preservation of the joint line in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has shown to be an important factor for the long-term outcome, especially in revision TKA. For unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), the role of the joint line has neither been investigated nor is it consciously respected during implantation. Thus, the aim was to establish and validate a standardised measurement method to determine the joint line in UKA.
Methods
As there is no established method to evaluate changes in the joint line radiologically, we introduced two methods and correlated them. The methods were first validated in a cadaver model by a controlled rotational study. Then, the joint line of 29 patients with an UKA (Oxford, Biomet, Bridgend, UK) was determined on pre- and post-operative radiographs. Both methods were tested by intra- and inter-rater reliability.
Results
Both methods showed a good intra- and inter-rater reliability. Furthermore, there was only little bias in agreement between both methods and raters. Measurements of the 29 UKA patients revealed that the joint line was more distally by a mean of 4.4 ± 1.2 mm after surgery.
Conclusions
The study provides for the first time a reliable and standardised measurement tool to determine the changes in the joint line after implantation of an UKA. The instrument should be used in further studies to evaluate the impact of the joint line on the long-term outcome, the load in the two non-replaced knee compartments and on the ligaments.
Level of evidence
Diagnostic study without a universally applied ‘gold’ standard, Level III.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anagnostakos K, Lorbach O, Kohn D (2012) Patella baja after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:1456–1462
Bellemans J (2004) Restoring the joint line in revision TKA: does it matter? Knee 11:3–5
Blackburne JS, Peel TE (1977) A new method of measuring patellar height. J Bone Joint Surg Br 59(2):241–242
Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 327:307–310
Bland JM, Altman DG (1999) Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 8:135–160
Carstensen B, Simpson J, Gurrin LC (2008) Statistical models for assessing agreement in method comparison studies with replicate measurements. Int J Biostat 4(1):1–26
Caton J, Deschamps G, Chambat P, Lerat JL, Dejour H (1982) Patella infera. Apropos of 128 cases. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 68:317–325
Classen T, Wegner A, von Knoch M (2009) Modification of the method of Figgie for determination of joint line shifting in total knee arthroplasty. Radiologe 49:533–537
Deschamps G, Chol C (2011) Fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Patients’ selection and operative technique. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 97:648–661
Eliasziw M, Young SL, Woodbury MG, Fryday-Field K (1994) Statistical methodology for the concurrent assessment of interrater and intrarater reliability: using goniometric measurements as an example. Phys Ther 74:777–788
Figgie HE III, Goldberg VM, Heiple KG, Moller HS III, Gordon NH (1986) The influence of tibial-patellofemoral location on function of the knee in patients with the posterior stabilized condylar knee prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 68:1035–1040
Floren M, Davis J, Peterson MG, Laskin RS (2007) A mini-midvastus capsular approach with patellar displacement decreases the prevalence of patella baja. J Arthroplast 22(Suppl 2):51–57
Hauptmann SM, Kreul U, Mazoochian F, Schulze-Pellengahr V, Jansson V, Muller PE (2005) Influence of patellofemoral osteoarthritis on functional outcome after unicondylar knee arthroplasty. Orthopade 34:1088–1093
Hvid I, Hansen SL (1985) Trabecular bone strength patterns at the proximal tibial epiphysis. J Orthop Res 3:464–472
Insall J, Salvati E (1971) Patella position in the normal knee joint. Radiology 101:101–104
Kubat P, Ptacek Z (2011) Biomechanical parameters and clinical outcomes of the Oxford Phase III unicompartmental knee replacement. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech 78:367–372
Laskin RS (2002) Joint line position restoration during revision total knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 404:169–171
Liddle AD, Pandit H, Jenkins C, Price AJ, Dodd CA, Gill HS, Murray DW (2012). Preoperative pain location is a poor predictor of outcome after Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at 1 and 5 years. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. doi:10.1007/s00167-012-2211-3
R Development Core Team (2011) A language and environment for statistical computing. R Development Core Team, Vienna
Robertsson O, Knutson K, Lewold S, Lidgren L (2001) The routine of surgical management reduces failure after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83:45–49
Springer BD, Scott RD, Thornhill TS (2006) Conversion of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 446:214–220
Tinius M, Hepp P, Becker R (2012) Combined unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:81–87
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Weber, P., Schröder, C., Laubender, R.P. et al. Joint line reconstruction in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: development and validation of a measurement method. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21, 2468–2473 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2617-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2617-6