Z Orthop Unfall
DOI: 10.1055/a-1015-6957
Original Article/Originalarbeit
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Unicondylar Tibiofemoral Arthroplasty – Opinions of the Members of the German Knee Society (DKG) and the German Professional Association of Orthopaedic and Trauma Specialists (BVOU)

Article in several languages: English | deutsch
Christoph Becher
1  HKF – Internationales Zentrum für Hüft-, Knie- und Fußchirurgie, ATOS Klinik Heidelberg
,
Johannes Beckmann
2  Sektion Endoprothetik, Sportklinik Stuttgart
,
Rüdiger von Eisenhart-Rothe
3  Klinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie und Sportorthopädie am Klinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität München
,
Michael Hirschmann
4  Klinik für Orthopädie und Traumatologie des Bewegungsapparates, Kantonsspital Baselland-Bruderholz, Schweiz
,
Johannes Holz
5  Zentrum für Orthopädie, OrthoCentrum Hamburg
,
Alois Franz
6  Klinik für Orthopädie, Unfall-, Handchirurgie und Sportverletzungen, St. Marien-Krankenhaus Siegen
,
Clemens Gwinner
7  Centrum für Muskuloskeletale Chirurgie, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin
,
Robert Hube
8  Orthopädische Chirurgie, OCM-Klinik München
,
Georg Matziolis
9  Orthopädische Klinik, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
11 November 2019 (online)

Abstract

Background The number of implanted unicondylar tibiofemoral knee arthroplasties (UKA) is despite the potential advantages in comparison to total knee arthroplasties (TKA) in Germany relatively low. Goal of this survey, initiated by the Small Implants Group of the German Knee Society, was to gather opinions and put them into context of the current literature.

Methods Based on the Delphi method and the AWMF rules and standards, 19 statements were developed, which were presented to the members of the DKG and BVOU in an anonymous online survey using “SurveyMonkey”. Overall, 410 colleagues participated.

Results The biggest detected controversies were the determination of indications with respect to the body mass index and the existence of a patellofemoral arthrosis. A general consent was determined that a contralateral tibiofemoral arthrosis grade III – IV and meniscal deficiency in the contralateral compartment are an absolute contraindication. There was a consent that age is not a limitation for the implantation of an UKA. If a personal minimum volume of 15 implantations/year should be implemented was seen controversial.

Conclusion The personal opinion, eventually built by personal experiences, appears to be in conflict with the knowledge of scientific literature in many instances. Intensive training and education appears necessary.