Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2023; 36(03): 246-253
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1731718
Original Article

Radiographic and Clinical Evolution of the Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

Riccardo D'Ambrosi 
1   IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy
,
Manuel J. de S.V. da Silva
2   Trofa Saúde Hospital Braga Centro, Braga, Portugal; ICVS/3B's, PT Government Associated Laboratory, Braga/Guimarães, Portugal; School of Medicine, Minho University, Braga, Portugal; Clinical Academic Center—Braga (2CA-Braga), Braga, Portugal
,
João L. M. Moura
3   Senhora da Oliveira Hospital, Guimarães, Portugal; Trofa Saúde Hospital Braga Centro, Braga, Portugal
,
Ilaria Mariani
4   Institute for Maternal and Child Health, IRCCS “Burlo Garofolo”, Trieste, Italy
,
Luca D. Serrao
1   IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy
,
Fabrizio Di Feo
1   IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy
,
Nicola Ursino
1   IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The aim of the study is to evaluate whether the use of the new instrumentation Microplasty (MP) improves component positioning and the reliability of the surgical technique, reducing the implant outliers from the recommended range and providing a more accurate resection, while avoiding insufficient or excessive tibial resection and clinical scores. We prospectively analyzed clinical and radiographic outcomes of three consecutive cohorts for a total of 227 implants at a minimum follow-up of 36 months. The first cohort consisted of 67 Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (OUKA), using the phase III (Ph-III). The second cohort consisted of 136 OUKA, with the MP instrumentation. The third cohort consisted of 24 hypoallergenic OUKA, using the MP instrumentation (TiNbN). Postoperative alignment of the knee in the coronal and sagittal plane was measured using radiographs. No clinical differences were found among the three groups (p > 0.05). A significant difference was found on the slope between Ph-III and MP (p = 0.0005). Moreover, a significant difference was found in tibial angle and in tibial slope in arthroplasty with femoral size small (S), compared with size medium (M) or large (Ly) (tibia varus/valugs angle: p = 0.0484; tibial slope: p = 0.04). Similar results were found between small (AA, A, B) tibial size and large (C, D, E, F) tibial size for tibial varus/valgus (p = 0.03) angle and tibial slope (p = 0.003). A significant difference was found between Ph-III and MP in tibial slope in patients with body mass index (BMI) ≥25 kg/m2 (p = 0.0003). A positive correlation was noted between the femoral and tibial sizes and the tibial angle and the slope, and a negative correlation between weight and the tibial slope; furthermore, a positive correlation was found between Oxford knee score and radiographic angles. The MP instrumentation seems to be effective in determining the tibial cut and, particularly, improving the tibial slope, compared with Ph-III. The tibial slope is directly affected by the weight and measurements of the components, regardless of the instruments or the number of pegs, while clinical outcomes are correlated with implant position. This prospective comparative study reflects level of evidence II.

Keywords

unicompartmental knee arthroplasty - Oxford - mobile bearing - tibial slope - implant positioning

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 15 July 2020

Accepted: 31 May 2021

Article published online:
16 July 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Liddle AD, Judge A, Pandit H, Murray DW. Adverse outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee replacement in 101,330 matched patients: a study of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet 2014; 384 (9952): 1437-1445
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Jackson WF, Berend KR, Spruijt S. 40 years of the Oxford Knee. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B (10) (suppl B): 1-2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Johal S, Nakano N, Baxter M, Hujazi I, Pandit H, Khanduja V. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: the past, current controversies, and future perspectives. J Knee Surg 2018; 31 (10) 992-998
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Price AJ, Svard U. A second decade lifetable survival analysis of the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469 (01) 174-179
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Lisowski LA, Meijer LI, van den Bekerom MP, Pilot P, Lisowski AE. Ten- to 15-year results of the Oxford Phase III mobile unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective study from a non-designer group. Bone Joint J 2016; 98 B (10) (suppl B): 41-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Liddle AD, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray DW. Effect of surgical caseload on revision rate following total and unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016; 98 (01) 1-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Jang KM, Lim HC, Han SB, Jeong C, Kim SG, Bae JH. Does new instrumentation improve radiologic alignment of the Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty?. Knee 2017; 24 (03) 641-650
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Koh IJ, Kim JH, Jang SW, Kim MS, Kim C, In Y. Are the Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty new instruments reducing the bearing dislocation risk while improving components relationships? A case control study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2016; 102 (02) 183-187
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Bravo D, Wagner ER, Larson DR, Davis MP, Pagnano MW, Sierra RJ. No Increased risk of knee arthroplasty failure in patients with positive skin patch testing for metal hypersensitivity: a matched cohort study. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (08) 1717-1721
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Walker T, Rutkowski L, Innmann M. et al. Unicondylar knee arthroplasty using cobalt-chromium implants in patients with self-reported cutaneous metal hypersensitivity. Bone Joint J 2019; 101-B (02) 227-232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 2007; 370 (9596): 1453-1457
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Zhang Q, Zhang Q, Guo W. et al. The learning curve for minimally invasive Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: cumulative summation test for learning curve (LC-CUSUM). J Orthop Surg Res 2014; 9: 81
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Hamilton TW, Pandit HG, Lombardi AV. et al. Radiological Decision Aid to determine suitability for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: development and preliminary validation. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B (10) (suppl B): 3-10R1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hurst JM, Berend KR, Adams JB, Lombardi Jr AV. Radiographic comparison of mobile-bearing partial knee single-peg versus twin-peg design. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (03) 475-478
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Mohammad HR, Matharu GS, Judge A, Murray DW. New surgical instrumentation reduces the revision rate of unicompartmental knee replacement: A propensity score matched comparison of 15,906 knees from the National Joint Registry. Knee 2020; 27 (03) 993-1002
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH, Shastri S, Jacoby SM. Insall award paper. Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002; (404) 7-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Mujika KM, Méndez JAJ, de Miguel AF. Advantages and disadvantages in image processing with free software in radiology. J Med Syst 2018; 42 (03) 36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Padua R, Zanoli G, Ceccarelli E, Romanini E, Bondì R, Campi A. The Italian version of the Oxford 12-item Knee Questionnaire-cross-cultural adaptation and validation. Int Orthop 2003; 27 (04) 214-216
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Walker T, Heinemann P, Bruckner T, Streit MR, Kinkel S, Gotterbarm T. The influence of different sets of surgical instrumentation in Oxford UKA on bearing size and component position. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2017; 137 (07) 895-902
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Bothra V, Lemon G, Lang D, Smith DM, Ali AM. Reliability of templating in estimating the size of uni-condylar knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2003; 18 (06) 780-783
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kasis AG, Pacheco RJ, Hekal W, Farhan MJ, Smith DM, Ali AM. The precision and accuracy of templating the size of unicondylar knee arthroplasty. Knee 2004; 11 (05) 395-398
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Fawzy E, Pandit H, Jenkins C, Dodd CA, Murray DW. Determination of femoral component size in unicompartmental knee replacement. Knee 2008; 15 (05) 403-406
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Tu Y, Xue H, Cai M, Ma T, Liu X, Xia Z. Improvement of femoral component size prediction using a C-arm intensifier guide and our established algorithm in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a report from a Chinese population. Knee 2014; 21 (02) 435-438
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Zhang Q, Wang W, Liu Z. et al. A novel extramedullary technique to guide femoral bone preparation in mobile unicompartmental knee arthroplasty based on tibial cut and overall alignment. J Orthop Surg Res 2020; 15 (01) 92
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Kort NP, van Raay JJ, Thomassen BJ. Alignment of the femoral component in a mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study in 10 cadaver femora. Knee 2007; 14 (04) 280-283
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Lee SY, Chay S, Lim HC, Bae JH. Tibial component rotation during the unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is the anterior superior iliac spine an appropriate landmark?. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25 (12) 3723-3732
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Kamenaga T, Hiranaka T, Kikuchi K, Hida Y, Fujishiro T, Okamoto K. Influence of tibial component rotation on short-term clinical outcomes in Oxford mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee 2018; 25 (06) 1222-1230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kamenaga T, Hiranaka T, Takayama K, Tsubosaka M, Kuroda R, Matsumoto T. Adequate positioning of the tibial component is key to avoiding bearing impingement in oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34 (11) 2606-2613
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kang KT, Koh YG, Son J, Kwon OR, Lee JS, Kwon SK. Influence of increased posterior tibial slope in total knee arthroplasty on knee joint biomechanics: a computational simulation study. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (02) 572-579
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Pangaud C, Laumonerie P, Dagneaux L. et al. Measurement of the posterior tibial slope depends on ethnicity, sex, and lower limb alignment: a computed tomography analysis of 378 healthy participants. Orthop J Sports Med 2020; 8 (01) 2325967119895258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Suzuki T, Ryu K, Kojima K, Oikawa H, Saito S, Nagaoka M. The effect of posterior tibial slope on joint gap and range of knee motion in mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34 (12) 2909-2913
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar