Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty: Which type of artificial joint do patients forget?

  • Knee
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

During recent years, there has been an intensive growth of interest in the patient’s perception of functional outcome. The Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) is a recently introduced score that measures joint awareness of patients who have undergone knee arthroplasty and is less limited by ceiling effects. The aim of this study was to compare the FJS between patients who undergo medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and patients who undergo total knee arthroplasty (TKA) 1 and 2 years post-operatively.

Methods

This prospective study compares the FJS at a minimum of one (average 1.5 years, range 1.0–1.9) and a minimum of 2 years (average 2.5 years, range 2.0–3.6) post-operatively between patients who underwent medial UKA and TKA.

Results

One-hundred and thirty patients were included. Sixty-five patients underwent medial UKA and 65 patients underwent TKA. At both follow-up points, the FJS was significantly higher in the UKA group (FJS 1 year 73.9 ± 22.8, FJS 2 year 74.3 ± 24.8) in contrast to the TKA group (FJS 1 year 59.3 ± 29.5 (p = 0.002), FJS 2 year 59.8 ± 31.5, (p = 0.004)). No significant improvement in the FJS was observed between 1- and 2-year follow-up of the two cohorts.

Conclusion

Patients who undergo UKA are more likely to forget their artificial joint in daily life and consequently may be more satisfied.

Level of evidence

II.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Baker P, Petheram T, Jameson S, Reed M, Gregg P, Deehan D (2012) The association between body mass index and the outcomes of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94(16):1501–1508

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Baker PN, Petheram T, Jameson SS, Avery PJ, Reed MR, Gregg PJ, Deehan DJ (2012) Comparison of patient-reported outcome measures following total and unicondylar knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94(7):919–927

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr, Mallory TH, Adams JB, Groseth KL (2005) Early failure of minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is associated with obesity. Clin Orthop Relat Res 440:60–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Berger RA, Meneghini RM, Jacobs JJ, Sheinkop MB, Della Valle CJ, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO (2005) Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum of 10 years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(5):999–1006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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(8):1149–1153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fitzgerald JD, Orav EJ, Lee TH, Marcantonio ER, Poss R, Goldman L, Mangione CM (2004) Patient quality of life during the 12 months following joint replacement surgery. Arthritis Rheum 51(1):100–109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Giesinger K, Hamilton DF, Jost B, Holzner B, Giesinger JM (2014) Comparative responsiveness of outcome measures for total knee arthroplasty. Osteoarthr Cartil 22(2):184–189

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Heck DA, Marmor L, Gibson A, Rougraff BT (1993) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. A multicenter investigation with long-term follow-up evaluation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 286:154–159

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kerkhoffs GM, Servien E, Dunn W, Dahm D, Bramer JA, Haverkamp D (2012) The influence of obesity on the complication rate and outcome of total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis and systematic literature review. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94(20):1839–1844

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Ko Y, Lo NN, Yeo SJ, Yang KY, Yeo W, Chong HC, Thumboo J (2013) Comparison of the responsiveness of the SF-36, the Oxford knee score, and the knee society clinical rating system in patients undergoing total knee replacement. Qual Life Res 22(9):2455–2459

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Koskinen E, Eskelinen A, Paavolainen P, Pulkkinen P, Remes V (2008) Comparison of survival and cost-effectiveness between unicondylar arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty in patients with primary osteoarthritis: a follow-up study of 50,493 knee replacements from the finnish arthroplasty register. Acta Orthop 79(4):499–507

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lygre SH, Espehaug B, Havelin LI, Furnes O, Vollset SE (2010) Pain and function in patients after primary unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92(18):2890–2897

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lyons MC, MacDonald SJ, Somerville LE, Naudie DD, McCalden RW (2012) Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty database analysis: is there a winner? Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(1):84–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Marx RG, Jones EC, Atwan NC, Closkey RF, Salvati EA, Sculco TP (2005) Measuring improvement following total hip and knee arthroplasty using patient-based measures of outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(9):1999–2005

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Murray DW, Pandit H, Weston-Simons JS, Jenkins C, Gill HS, Lombardi AV, Dodd CA, Berend KR (2013) Does body mass index affect the outcome of unicompartmental knee replacement? Knee 20(6):461–465

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Namba RS, Paxton L, Fithian DC, Stone ML (2005) Obesity and perioperative morbidity in total hip and total knee arthroplasty patients. J Arthroplasty 20(7):46–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Niinimaki TT, Eskelinen A, Ohtonen P, Junnila M, Leppilahti J (2012) Incidence of osteotomies around the knee for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a 22-year population-based study. Int Orthop 36(7):1399–1402

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Noticewala MS, Geller JA, Lee JH, Macaulay W (2012) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty relieves pain and improves function more than total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 27(8):99–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Nwachukwu BU, McCormick FM, Schairer WW, Frank RM, Provencher MT, Roche MW (2014) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus high tibial osteotomy: United States practice patterns for the surgical treatment of unicompartmental arthritis. J Arthroplasty 29(8):1586–1589

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Pearle AD, O’Loughlin PF, Kendoff DO (2010) Robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 25(2):230–237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pynsent PB, Adams DJ, Disney SP (2005) The Oxford hip and knee outcome questionnaires for arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87(2):241–248

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Roche M, O’Loughlin PF, Kendoff D, Musahl V, Pearle AD (2009) Robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: preoperative planning and surgical technique. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead, NJ) 38(2):10–15

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sun PF, Jia YH (2012) Mobile bearing UKA compared to fixed bearing TKA: a randomized prospective study. Knee 19(2):103–106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Thienpont E, Opsomer G, Koninckx A, Houssiau F (2014) Joint awareness in different types of knee arthroplasty evaluated with the Forgotten Joint score. J Arthroplasty 29(1):48–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Thompson SA, 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(9):1561–1564

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Thompson SM, Salmon LJ, Webb JM, Pinczewski LA, Roe JP (2015) Construct validity and test re-test reliability of the Forgotten Joint Score. J Arthroplasty. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2015.05.001

    Google Scholar 

  28. Weinstein AM, Rome BN, Reichmann WM, Collins JE, Burbine SA, Thornhill TS, Wright J, Katz JN, Losina E (2013) Estimating the burden of total knee replacement in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95(5):385–392

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Computer Assisted Surgery Center, Hospital for Special Surgery, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, 535 E. 70th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA

    Hendrik A. Zuiderbaan, Jelle P. van der List, Saker Khamaisy, Danyal H. Nawabi, Ran Thein, C. Ishmael, Sophia Paul & Andrew D. Pearle

Authors
  1. Hendrik A. Zuiderbaan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jelle P. van der List
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Saker Khamaisy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Danyal H. Nawabi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ran Thein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. C. Ishmael
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sophia Paul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Andrew D. Pearle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hendrik A. Zuiderbaan.

Appendix: FJS-12 score

Appendix: FJS-12 score

The following 12 questions refer to how aware you are of your artificial hip/knee joint in everyday life. Please tick one answer from each question.

Are you aware of your artificial joint…

  1. 1.

    … in bed at night?

    ○ never ○ almost never ○ seldom ○ sometimes ○ mostly

  2. 2.

    … when you are sitting on a chair for more than 1 h?

    ○ never ○ almost never ○ seldom ○ sometimes ○ mostly

  3. 3.

    … when you are walking for more than 15 min?

    ○ never ○ almost never ○ seldom ○ sometimes ○ mostly

  4. 4.

    … when you are taking a bath/shower?

    ○ never ○ almost never ○ seldom ○ sometimes ○ mostly

  5. 5.

    … when you are traveling in a car?

    ○ never ○ almost never ○ seldom ○ sometimes ○ mostly

  6. 6.

    … when you are climbing stairs?

    ○ never ○ almost never ○ seldom ○ sometimes ○ mostly

  7. 7.

    … when you are walking on uneven ground?

    ○ never ○ almost never ○ seldom ○ sometimes ○ mostly

  8. 8.

    … when you are standing up from a low-sitting position?

    ○ never ○ almost never ○ seldom ○ sometimes ○ mostly

  9. 9.

    … when you are standing for long periods of time?

    ○ never ○ almost never ○ seldom ○ sometimes ○ mostly

  10. 10.

    … when you are doing housework or gardening?

    ○ never ○ almost never ○ seldom ○ sometimes ○ mostly

  11. 11.

    … when you are taking a walk/hiking?

    ○ never ○ almost never ○ seldom ○ sometimes ○ mostly

  12. 12.

    … when you are doing your favorite sport?

    ○ never ○ almost never ○ seldom ○ sometimes ○ mostly

Scoring: For scoring the FJS-12, all responses are summed (never, 0 points; almost never, 1 point; seldom, 2 points; sometimes, 3 points; mostly, 4 points) and then divided into the number of completed items. This mean value is subsequently multiplied by 25 to obtain a total score range of 0–100. Finally, the score is subtracted from 100, to change the direction of the final score in a way that high scores indicate a high degree of “forgetting” the artificial joint, that is, a low degree of awareness.

If more than four responses are missing, the total score should not be used.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zuiderbaan, H.A., van der List, J.P., Khamaisy, S. et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty: Which type of artificial joint do patients forget?. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25, 681–686 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3868-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3868-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation