Subscribe to RSS
Historical Cohort of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty in a Chilean University HospitalArticle in several languages: español | English
Purpose To describe the patient-reported functional outcome of a cohort of patients undergoing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) in a Chilean university hospital.
Methods A historical cohort study was designed. All patients who underwent fixed-bearing UKA between 2003 and 2019 were included. An independent evaluator contacted the patients in June 2020. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) was used to compare UKA procedures (medial or lateral), age (over or under 70 years), and follow up (longer or shorter than 5 years).
Results A total of 78 patients, corresponding to 94 UKAs, were included. The median age was 64 years (range: 43 to 85 years). There were 72 (76.6%) cases of medial UKA. One patient needed revision to total knee arthoplasty (TKA). A total of 60 patients (76.9%), corresponding to 72 UKAs, were successfully contacted by phone for the final follow-up. The median scores on the WOMAC domains were: pain – 1 (range: 0 to 12); stiffness –0 (range: 0 to 4); and physical function – 2 (range: 0 to 29). The median total score on the WOMAC was 4 (range: 0 to 44). Patients submitted to lateral UKA had better functional scores (p = 0.0432), and the total WOMAC score was similar among patients older or younger than 70 years of age (p = 0.3706).
Conclusions For patients with unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis, UKA is an effective and reproducible treatment. Age does not seem to affect the functional results, and UKA is an effective treatment in patients over 70 years old. These results should encourage knee surgeons to learn this technique and those responsible for public health policies to consider UKA for knee osteoarthritis.
Keywordsunicompartmental knee arthroplasty - unicompartmental knee replacement - osteoarthritis - knee - epidemiology
Roles and Contribution of Authorship
CI: conceptualization, validation, research, data curation, writing (review and editing), visualization, supervision, and project administration.
MB: methodology, formal analysis, research, and writing (original draft preparation, review, and editing).
DP: methodology, formal analysis, research, resources, data curation, writing (preparation of the original draft).
CB: research, resources, data curation, writing (review and editing), supervision.
MP: validation, formal analysis, research, resources, data curation, writing (preparation of the original draft).
AZ: formal analysis, research, writing (review and editing), supervision, project administration.
JH: validation, writing (review and editing), supervision, project administration.
JC: resources, writing (review and editing), supervision, project administration.
The present study was approved by the Ethichs in Research Committee at Hospital Clínico Universidad de Chile ethics, as stated in certificate number 26, issued on June 26, 2020.
Availability of Data
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study can be made available by the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Received: 28 March 2021
Accepted: 06 August 2021
17 January 2022 (online)
© 2022. Sociedad Chilena de Ortopedia y Traumatologia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil
- 1 Luo TD, Hubbard JB. Arthroplasty Knee Unicompartmental, in StatPearls [Internet] . 2019. StatPearls Publishing;
- 2 Marmor L. Marmor modular knee in unicompartmental disease. Minimum four-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1979; 61 (03) 347-353
- 3 Smith II WB, Steinberg J, Scholtes S, Mcnamara IR. Medial compartment knee osteoarthritis: age-stratified cost-effectiveness of total knee arthroplasty, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, and high tibial osteotomy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25 (03) 924-933
- 4 Witjes S, Gouttebarge V, Kuijer PP, van Geenen RC, Poolman RW, Kerkhoffs GM. Return to sports and physical activity after total and unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med 2016; 46 (02) 269-292
- 5 Willis-Owen CA, Brust K, Alsop H, Miraldo M, Cobb JP. Unicondylar knee arthroplasty in the UK National Health Service: an analysis of candidacy, outcome and cost efficacy. Knee 2009; 16 (06) 473-478
- 6 Vasso M, Antoniadis A, Helmy N. Update on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Current indications and failure modes. EFORT Open Rev 2018; 3 (08) 442-448
- 7 Ingale PA, Hadden WA. A review of mobile bearing unicompartmental knee in patients aged 80 years or older and comparison with younger groups. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (02) 262-267.e2
- 8 Tadros BJ, Dabis J, Twyman R. Short-term outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the octogenarian population. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2018; 26 (05) 1571-1576
- 9 Cook R, Davidson P, White A. NIHR Dissemination Centre. Partial knee replacement could be first choice for some patients with osteoarthritis. BMJ 2019; 367: l5994-l5994
- 10 Kuipers BM, Kollen BJ, Bots PC. et al. Factors associated with reduced early survival in the Oxford phase III medial unicompartment knee replacement. Knee 2010; 17 (01) 48-52
- 11 Escobar A, Quintana JM, Bilbao A, Azkárate J, Güenaga JI. Validation of the Spanish version of the WOMAC questionnaire for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Clin Rheumatol 2002; 21 (06) 466-471
- 12 Roos MK, Lohmander LS. EM, WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index: Reliability, validity, and responsiveness in patients with arthroscopically assessed osteoarthritis . Scand J Rheumatol 1999; 28 (04) 210-215
- 13 Clement ND, Bardgett M, Weir D, Holland J, Gerrand C, Deehan DJ. What is the minimum clinically important difference for the WOMAC index after TKA?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2018; 476 (10) 2005-2014
- 14 Pol EN. Evaluación del paciente y medida de resultados. Aten Primaria 2014; 46 (Suppl. 01) 32-38
- 15 López Alonso SR, Martínez Sánchez CM, Romero Cañadillas AB, Navarro Casado F, González Rojo J. Propiedades métricas del cuestionario WOMAC y de una versión reducida para medir la sintomatología y la discapacidad física. Aten Primaria 2009; 41 (11) 613-620
- 16 Bruce DJ, Hassaballa M, Robinson JR, Porteous AJ, Murray JR, Newman JH. Minimum 10-year outcomes of a fixed bearing all-polyethylene unicompartmental knee arthroplasty used to treat medial osteoarthritis. Knee 2020; 27 (03) 1018-1027
- 17 Hamilton TW, Rizkalla JM, Kontochristos L. et al. The interaction of caseload and usage in determining outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (10) 3228-3237.e2
- 18 Antoniadis A, Dimitriou D, Canciani JP, Helmy N. A novel preoperative scoring system for the indication of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, as predictor of clinical outcome and satisfaction. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2019; 139 (01) 113-120
- 19 Deschamps G, Chol C. Fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Patients' selection and operative technique. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2011; 97 (06) 648-661
- 20 Chen Y, Fang X, Huang Z. et al. Factors affecting the clinical outcomes including patient satisfaction after Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a retrospective study. Arthroplasty 2020; 2 (01) 1-9
- 21 Kuwashima U, Okazaki K, Tashiro Y. et al. Correction of coronal alignment correlates with reconstruction of joint height in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint Res 2015; 4 (08) 128-133
- 22 Kreitz TM, Maltenfort MG, Lonner JH. The valgus stress radiograph does not determine the full extent of correction of deformity prior to medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (07) 1233-1236
- 23 Waldstein W, Bou Monsef J, Buckup J, Boettner F. The value of valgus stress radiographs in the workup for medial unicompartmental arthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471 (12) 3998-4003
- 24 Zhang Q, Yue J, Wang W, Chen Y, Zhao Q, Guo W. FTFA change under valgus stress force radiography is useful for evaluating the correctability of intra-articular varus deformity in UKA. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2018; 138 (07) 1003-1009
- 25 Bini S, Khatod M, Cafri G, Chen Y, Paxton EW. Surgeon, implant, and patient variables may explain variability in early revision rates reported for unicompartmental arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95 (24) 2195-2202
- 26 Griffin T, Rowden N, Morgan D, Atkinson R, Woodruff P, Maddern G. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for the treatment of unicompartmental osteoarthritis: a systematic study. ANZ J Surg 2007; 77 (04) 214-221
- 27 Fabre-Aubrespy M, Ollivier M, Pesenti S, Parratte S, Argenson JN. 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 2016; 31 (12) 2668-2671
- 28 Siman H, Kamath AF, Carrillo N, Harmsen WS, Pagnano MW, Sierra RJ. 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 2017; 32 (06) 1792-1797
- 29 Hopkins AR, New AM, Rodriguez-y-Baena F, Taylor M. Finite element analysis of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Med Eng Phys 2010; 32 (01) 14-21
- 30 Negrín R, Duboy J, Iñiguez M. et al. Robotic-assisted vs conventional surgery in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a clinical and radiological study. Knee Surg Relat Res 2021; 33 (01) 5
- 31 Heyse TJ, Tibesku CO. Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a review. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2010; 130 (12) 1539-1548
- 32 van der List JP, McDonald LS, Pearle AD. Systematic review of medial versus lateral survivorship in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee 2015; 22 (06) 454-460
- 33 Fiocchi A, Condello V, Madonna V, Bonomo M, Zorzi C. Medial vs lateral unicompartmental knee arthrroplasty: clinical results. Acta Biomed 2017; 88 (2S): (Suppl. 02) 38-44
- 34 Xue H, Ma T, Wen T, Yang T, Xue L, Tu Y. Predictors of Satisfactory Outcomes With Fixed-Bearing Lateral Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Up to 7-year Follow-Up. J Arthroplasty 2021; 36 (03) 910-916
- 35 Negrín R. et al. Robotic-assisted surgery in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: does it improve the precision of the surgery and its clinical outcomes? Systematic review. J Robot Surg 2020; •••: 1-13
- 36 Negrín R. et al. Cirugía Robótica en Artroplastia de Rodilla. Rev Chil Ortoped Traumatol 2019; 60 (02) 67-76
- 37 Gaudiani MA, Samuel LT, Kamath AF, Courtney PM, Lee GC. Robotic-Assisted versus Manual Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Contemporary Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Early Functional Outcomes. J Knee Surg 2020
- 38 Robinson PG, Clement ND, Hamilton D, Blyth MJG, Haddad FS, Patton JT. A systematic review of robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: prosthesis design and type should be reported. Bone Joint J 2019; 101-B (07) 838-847
- 39 Negrín R, Duboy J, Reyes NO. et al. Robotic-assisted Unicompartmental knee Arthroplasty optimizes joint line restitution better than conventional surgery. J Exp Orthop 2020; 7 (01) 94