Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2021; 34(14): 1603-1608
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1710567
Original Article

The Influence of Patellofemoral Degenerative Changes on the Outcome of the Unicompartmental Knee Replacement: A Prospective Study

Ali Abdulkarim
1   Department of Orthopaedics, Cambridge University Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom
,
Ayla C. Newton
1   Department of Orthopaedics, Cambridge University Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom
,
Turlough O'Donnell
2   Department of Orthopaedics, University College Dublin School of Medicine, Dublin, Ireland
,
Michael J. Neil
3   Department of Orthopaedics, University of New South Wales, Randwick, Sydney, Australia
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a recognized procedure for treatment of medial compartment osteoarthritis. Patellofemoral (PF) joint degeneration is widely considered to be a contraindication to medial compartment UKA. We examined the validity of this preconception using information gathered prospectively on 147 consecutive patients who underwent the Repicci II UKA for medial compartment osteoarthritis between July 1999 and September 2000 by the same surgeon. The status of the PF joint was assessed intraoperatively in all patients, and accordingly patients were divided into two groups. Among them, 69 had associated PF osteoarthritis (group A), while 78 patients had a normal PF compartment (group B). Variables measured included the International Knee Society (IKS) score, limb alignment, and range of motion. Radiographs, demographic data, length of hospital stay, perioperative complications were also measured. All subsequent surgery and survivorship at 10 years were recorded. The mean follow-up was 9.4 years (range: 5–10.7 years) and results of the two groups were compared. We found no significant differences in terms of IKS scores, alignment, and flexion between the two groups. However, measured extension was significantly increased postoperatively in those patients with minimal or no PF joint degenerative disease (p < 0.05).

Keywords

patellofemoral - arthroplasty - unicompartmental - knee - arthritis


Publication History

Received: 16 July 2019

Accepted: 31 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 Marmor L. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Ten- to 13-year follow-up study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988; 226 (226) 14-20
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Borus T, Thornhill T. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2008; 16 (01) 9-18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hanson GR, Moynihan AL, Suggs JF, Kwon Y-M, Johnson T, Li G. Kinematics of medial unicondylar knee arthroplasty: an in vivo investigation. J Knee Surg 2009; 22 (03) 237-242
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Newman J, Pydisetty RV, Ackroyd C. Unicompartmental or total knee replacement: the 15-year results of a prospective randomised controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009; 91 (01) 52-57
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Mullaji AB, Sharma A, Marawar S. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: functional recovery and radiographic results with a minimally invasive technique. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22 (04, Suppl 1): 7-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Larsen K, Sørensen OG, Hansen TB, Thomsen PB, Søballe K. Accelerated perioperative care and rehabilitation intervention for hip and knee replacement is effective: a randomized clinical trial involving 87 patients with 3 months of follow-up. Acta Orthop 2008; 79 (02) 149-159
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 McAllister CM. The role of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty in providing maximal performance and satisfaction. J Knee Surg 2008; 21 (04) 286-292
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Newman JH, Ackroyd CE, Shah NA. Unicompartmental or total knee replacement? Five-year results of a prospective, randomised trial of 102 osteoarthritic knees with unicompartmental arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998; 80 (05) 862-865
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Laurencin CT, Zelicof SB, Scott RD, Ewald FC. Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in the same patient. A comparative study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1991; 273 (273) 151-156
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Berend KR, Lombardi Jr AV. Liberal indications for minimally invasive oxford unicondylar arthroplasty provide rapid functional recovery and pain relief. Surg Technol Int 2007; 16: 193-197
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Soohoo NF, Sharifi H, Kominski G, Lieberman JR. Cost-effectiveness analysis of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty as an alternative to total knee arthroplasty for unicompartmental osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88 (09) 1975-1982
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kozinn SC, Scott R. Unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1989; 71 (01) 145-150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Stern SH, Becker MW, Insall JN. Unicondylar knee arthroplasty. An evaluation of selection criteria. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1993; 286 (286) 143-148
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Goodfellow JW, O'Connor J. Clinical results of the Oxford knee. Surface arthroplasty of the tibiofemoral joint with a meniscal bearing prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1986; 205 (205) 21-42
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Pennington DW, Swienckowski JJ, Lutes WB, Drake GN. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients sixty years of age or younger. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85 (10) 1968-1973
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ahlbäck S. Osteoarthrosis of the knee. A radiographic investigation. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh) 1968; 277: 7-72
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Altman R, Asch E, Bloch D. et al; Diagnostic and Therapeutic Criteria Committee of the American Rheumatism Association. Development of criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis. Classification of osteoarthritis of the knee. Arthritis Rheum 1986; 29 (08) 1039-1049
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 O'Donnell T, Neil MJ. The Repicci II unicondylar knee arthroplasty: 9-year survivorship and function. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (11) 3094-3102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Borm GF, Fransen J, Lemmens WA. A simple sample size formula for analysis of covariance in randomized clinical trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60 (12) 1234-1238
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Dalury DF, Fisher DA, Adams MJ, Gonzales RA. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compares favorably to total knee arthroplasty in the same patient. Orthopedics 2009; 32 (04) 32-34
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Brown NM, Sheth NP, Davis K. et al. Total knee arthroplasty has higher postoperative morbidity than unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a multicenter analysis. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27 (08) 86-90
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 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
  • 24 Graves SE, Davidson D, Ingerson L. et al. The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Med J Aust 2004; 180 (S5) S31-S34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Lidgren LRO, W-Dahl A. Available at: http://www.knee.nko.se/english/online/thePages/index.php . Accessed April 13, 2020
    PubMed
  • 26 Beard DJ, Pandit H, Ostlere S, Jenkins C, Dodd CA, Murray DW. Pre-operative clinical and radiological assessment of the patellofemoral joint in unicompartmental knee replacement and its influence on outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007; 89 (12) 1602-1607
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Kang SN, Smith TO, Sprenger De Rover WB, Walton NP. Pre-operative patellofemoral degenerative changes do not affect the outcome after medial Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement: a report from an independent centre. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011; 93 (04) 476-478
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Laskin RS. Unicompartmental knee replacement: some unanswered questions. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; 392 (392) 267-271
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Hernigou P, Deschamps G. Alignment influences wear in the knee after medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; (423) 161-165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Mullaji AB, Shetty GM, Kanna R. Postoperative limb alignment and its determinants after minimally invasive Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26 (06) 919-925
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Pabinger C, Berghold A, Boehler N, Labek G. Revision rates after knee replacement. Cumulative results from worldwide clinical studies versus joint registers. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2013; 21 (02) 263-268
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Tabor Jr. OB, Tabor OB. Unicompartmental arthroplasty: a long-term follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 1998; 13 (04) 373-379
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Emery IH, Meachim G. Surface morphology and topography of patello-femoral cartilage fibrillation in Liverpool necropsies. J Anat 1973; 116 (Pt 1): 103-120
    PubMedGoogle Scholar