Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2021; 34(13): 1454-1462
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1710360
Original Article

All-Polyethylene Tibial Component Does Not Affect Survivorship of Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty at Mid-Term Follow-Up

Michele Gagliardi
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Emilia-Romagna, Italy
,
Francesco Zambianchi 
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Emilia-Romagna, Italy
,
Alois Franz
2   Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Sports Traumatology, St. Marien-Krankenhaus - Siegen, Germany
,
Vitantonio Digennaro
3   1st Orthopedic Clinic, Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Emilia-Romagna, Italy
,
Fabio Catani
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Emilia-Romagna, Italy
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The present study's primary aim was to determine the survivorship of a large cohort of patients implanted with a single design all-polyethylene tibial component medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Its secondary purpose was to investigate the reasons underlying implant failure, with specific attention to component positioning and limb alignment. Between 2007 and 2013, 166 patients underwent medial UKA with a single design all-polyethylene tibial component at two centers. Preoperatively and postoperatively, patients were administered clinical outcome scores and radiographic information were collected. Postoperative complications and causes of revision were recorded. A total of 140 patients (80 in Center A and 60 in Center B) who underwent all-polyethylene tibial component medial UKA (82 cases in Center A and 60 in Center B) were taken into account. Kaplan–Meier cumulative survivorship of implants was 96.5% (confidence interval [CI]: 91.7–98.6%) at an average follow-up of 61.1 months. Tibial aseptic loosening was accounted for failure in one case, while no correlation was found between implant positioning and failure. Two revisions were performed in Center A and three in Center B. Slight correction of the preoperative varus deformity was performed at both centers. All-polyethylene tibial component UKA provided satisfactory clinical and functional outcome, with excellent survival rate in the early and mid-term follow-up. Continued patient follow-up is needed to determine long-term survivorship of the examined UKA model.

Keywords

all-polyethylene - unicompartmental knee arthroplasty - survivorship - alignment


Publication History

Received: 15 January 2019

Accepted: 21 March 2020

Article published online:
25 May 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

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

 

  • References

  • 1 Furnes O, Espehaug B, Lie SA, Vollset SE, Engesaeter LB, Havelin LI. Failure mechanisms after unicompartmental and tricompartmental primary knee replacement with cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89 (03) 519-525
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Gladnick BP, Nam D, Khamaisy S, Paul S, Pearle AD. Onlay tibial implants appear to provide superior clinical results in robotic unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. HSS J 2015; 11 (01) 43-49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Small SR, Berend ME, Ritter MA, Buckley CA, Rogge RD. Metal backing significantly decreases tibial strains in a medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty model. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26 (05) 777-782
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bruni D, Akkawi I, Iacono F. et al. Minimum thickness of all-poly tibial component unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients younger than 60 years does not increase revision rate for aseptic loosening. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2013; 21 (11) 2462-2467
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Chatellard R, Sauleau V, Colmar M, Robert H, Raynaud G, Brilhault J. Société d'Orthopédie et de Traumatologie de l'Ouest (SOO). Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: does tibial component position influence clinical outcomes and arthroplasty survival?. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2013; 99 (04) S219-S225
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Lustig S, Paillot JL, Servien E, Henry J, Ait Si Selmi T, Neyret P. Cemented all polyethylene tibial insert unicompartimental knee arthroplasty: a long term follow-up study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2009; 95 (01) 12-21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Koh IJ, Suhl KH, Kim MW, Kim MS, Choi KY, In Y. Use of All-polyethylene Tibial Components in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty increases the risk of early failure. J Knee Surg 2017; 30 (08) 807-815
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Heyse TJ, Khefacha A, Peersman G, Cartier P. Survivorship of UKA in the middle-aged. Knee 2012; 19 (05) 585-591
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hawi N, Plutat J, Kendoff D. et al. Midterm results after unicompartmental knee replacement with all-polyethylene tibial component: a single surgeon experience. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2016; 136 (09) 1303-1307
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Pandit H, Jenkins C, Gill HS, Barker K, Dodd CA, Murray DW. Minimally invasive Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee replacement: results of 1000 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011; 93 (02) 198-204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 van der List JP, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD. Why do medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties fail today?. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (05) 1016-1021
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kim KT, Lee S, Lee JI, Kim JW. Analysis and treatment of complications after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res 2016; 28 (01) 46-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Zambianchi F, Digennaro V, Giorgini A. et al. Surgeon's experience influences UKA survivorship: a comparative study between all-poly and metal back designs. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2015; 23 (07) 2074-2080
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)--development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1998; 28 (02) 88-96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989; (248) 13-14
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Bruni D, Gagliardi M, Akkawi I. et al. Good survivorship of all-polyethylene tibial component UKA at long-term follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2016; 24 (01) 182-187
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Manzotti A, Cerveri P, Pullen C, Confalonieri N. A flat all-polyethylene tibial component in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a long-term study. Knee 2014; 21 (Suppl. 01) S20-S25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hutt JR, Farhadnia P, Massé V, LaVigne M, Vendittoli PA. A randomised trial of all-polyethylene and metal-backed tibial components in unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B (06) 786-792
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Scott CE, Eaton MJ, Nutton RW, Wade FA, Pankaj P, Evans SL. Proximal tibial strain in medial unicompartmental knee replacements: a biomechanical study of implant design. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B (10) 1339-1347
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Scott CE, Eaton MJ, Nutton RW, Wade FA, Evans SL, Pankaj P. Metal-backed versus all-polyethylene unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Proximal tibial strain in an experimentally validated finite element model. Bone Joint Res 2017; 6 (01) 22-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hernigou P, Poignard A, Filippini P, Zilber S. Retrieved unicompartmental implants with full PE tibial components: the effects of knee alignment and polyethylene thickness on creep and wear. Open Orthop J 2008; 2: 51-56
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Clarius M, Hauck C, Seeger JB, Pritsch M, Merle C, Aldinger PR. Correlation of positioning and clinical results in Oxford UKA. Int Orthop 2010; 34 (08) 1145-1151
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Collier MB, Eickmann TH, Sukezaki F, McAuley JP, Engh GA. Patient, implant, and alignment factors associated with revision of medial compartment unicondylar arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2006; 21 (06, Suppl 2): 108-115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 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
  • 25 Sawatari T, Tsumura H, Iesaka K, Furushiro Y, Torisu T. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty--the influence of tibial component inclination. J Orthop Res 2005; 23 (03) 549-554
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Fang D, Ritter MA. Malalignment: forewarned is forearmed. Orthopedics 2009;32(09): orthosupersite.com/view.asp?rID=42850
    Google Scholar