Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2021; 34(13): 1413-1420
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1709678
Original Article

Implant Alignment and Patient Factors Affecting the Short-Term Patient-Reported Clinical Outcomes after Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

Ryota Yamagami 
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
,
HIroshi Inui
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
,
Shuji Taketomi
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
,
Kenichi Kono
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
,
Kohei Kawaguchi
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
,
Kentaro Takagi
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
,
Tomofumi Kage
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
,
Shin Sameshima
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
,
Sakae Tanaka
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

This study aims at clarifying implant alignment and other patient factors' influence on clinical outcomes, particularly on patient-reported outcomes (PRO), following Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (OUKA). A total of 142 patients after OUKA were divided into two groups according to the validated Japanese version of the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) for each subscale of pain, symptoms, and activities of daily living (ADL) at postoperative year 1 and 2: group 1 had ≥80 scores and group 2 had <80 scores. Postoperative clinical and radiographical findings were then compared among groups in each subscale. Using postoperative year 1 and 2 data, a multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to clarify factors for clinical outcomes' improvement. In the analysis of KOOS subscale of symptoms at postoperative year 1, gender distribution, preoperative body mass index, and postoperative maximum knee flexion angles differed significantly among groups. In the analysis for KOOS subscale of ADL, significant differences were observed in postoperative tibial component varus angles. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that all of these parameters significantly related to ≥80 KOOS scores of each subscale at postoperative year 1. Additionally, at postoperative year 2, larger postoperative knee flexion angles and tibial component varus angles related to ≥80 KOOS subscale of symptoms and ADL were observed. In conclusion, tibial component's larger varus alignment was associated with the better PRO at both 1 and 2 years after OUKA. Importantly, larger postoperative knee flexion angle helped achieve good short-term PRO after OUKA.

Keywords

unicompartmental knee arthroplasty - patient-reported outcome - implant alignment - limb alignment - knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score


Publication History

Received: 20 August 2019

Accepted: 01 March 2020

Article published online:
30 April 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

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

 

  • References

  • 1 Biswal S, Brighton RW. Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cemented, fixed-bearing prosthesis using minimally invasive surgery. J Arthroplasty 2010; 25 (05) 721-727
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Von Keudell A, Sodha S, Collins J, Minas T, Fitz W, Gomoll AH. Patient satisfaction after primary total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: an age-dependent analysis. Knee 2014; 21 (01) 180-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 W-Dahl A, Robertsson O, Lidgren L, Miller L, Davidson D, Graves S. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients aged less than 65. Acta Orthop 2010; 81 (01) 90-94
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Niinimäki T, Eskelinen A, Mäkelä K, Ohtonen P, Puhto AP, Remes V. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty survivorship is lower than TKA survivorship: a 27-year Finnish registry study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472 (05) 1496-1501
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 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
  • 6 Pandit H, Hamilton TW, Jenkins C, Mellon SJ, Dodd CA, Murray DW. The clinical outcome of minimally invasive Phase 3 Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a 15-year follow-up of 1000 UKAs. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B (11) 1493-1500
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Yoshida K, Tada M, Yoshida H, Takei S, Fukuoka S, Nakamura H. Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in Japan--clinical results in greater than one thousand cases over ten years. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (09) 168-171
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Koskinen E, Paavolainen P, Eskelinen A, Pulkkinen P, Remes V. Unicondylar knee replacement for primary osteoarthritis: a prospective follow-up study of 1,819 patients from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2007; 78 (01) 128-135
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Harrysson OLA, Robertsson O, Nayfeh JF. Higher cumulative revision rate of knee arthroplasties in younger patients with osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; (421) 162-168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Baker P, Jameson S, Critchley R, Reed M, Gregg P, Deehan D. Center and surgeon volume influence the revision rate following unicondylar knee replacement: an analysis of 23,400 medial cemented unicondylar knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95 (08) 702-709
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Cartier P, Sanouiller JL, Grelsamer RP. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty surgery. 10-year minimum follow-up period. J Arthroplasty 1996; 11 (07) 782-788
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Hernigou P, Deschamps G. Alignment influences wear in the knee after medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; (423) 161-165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ridgeway SR, McAuley JP, Ammeen DJ, Engh GA. The effect of alignment of the knee on the outcome of unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002; 84 (03) 351-355
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hernigou P, Deschamps G. Posterior slope of the tibial implant and the outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86 (03) 506-511
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 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
  • 16 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
  • 17 Inoue S, Akagi M, Asada S, Mori S, Zaima H, Hashida M. The valgus inclination of the tibial component increases the risk of medial tibial condylar fractures in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (09) 2025-2030
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Dai X, Fang J, Jiang L, Xiong Y, Zhang M, Zhu S. How does the inclination of the tibial component matter? A three-dimensional finite element analysis of medial mobile-bearing unicompartmental arthroplasty. Knee 2018; 25 (03) 434-444
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Sekiguchi K, Nakamura S, Kuriyama S. et al. Effect of tibial component alignment on knee kinematics and ligament tension in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint Res 2019; 8 (03) 126-135
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Inui H, Taketomi S, Yamagami R, Kawaguchi K, Nakazato K, Tanaka S. Necessary factors to achieve deep flexion for Asian populations after oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 2019; 33 (03) 294-300
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Murray DW, Goodfellow JW, O'Connor JJ. The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a ten-year survival study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998; 80 (06) 983-989
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Goodfellow JW, O'Connor J, Pandit H, Dodd C, Murray D. Unicompartmental Arthroplasty with the Oxford Knee. 2nd ed. Publishers G, Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015: 29-89
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 23 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
  • 24 Nakamura N, Takeuchi R, Sawaguchi T, Ishikawa H, Saito T, Goldhahn S. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the japanese knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS). J Orthop Sci 2011; 16 (05) 516-523
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 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
  • 26 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
  • 27 Overgaard A, Lidgren L, Sundberg M, Robertsson O, W-Dahl A. Patient-reported 1-year outcome not affected by body mass index in 3,327 total knee arthroplasty patients. Acta Orthop 2019; 90 (04) 360-365
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Khoshbin A, Stavrakis A, Sharma A. et al. Patient-reported outcome measures of total knee arthroplasties for post-traumatic arthritis versus osteoarthritis: a short-term (5- to 10-year) retrospective matched cohort study. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34 (05) 872-876.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Hoorntje A, Witjes S, Koenraadt KLM, Aarts R, Weert T, van Geenen RCI. More severe preoperative Kellgren-Lawrence grades of knee osteoarthritis were partially associated with better postoperative patient-reported outcomes in TKA patients. J Knee Surg 2019; 32 (03) 211-217
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Kanda Y. Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software ‘EZR’ for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant 2013; 48 (03) 452-458
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Liddle AD, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray DW. Patient-reported outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study of 14,076 matched patients from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B (06) 793-801
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Kayani B, Konan S, Pietrzak JRT, Huq SS, Tahmassebi J, Haddad FS. The learning curve associated with robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. Bone Joint J 2018; 100-B (08) 1033-1042
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Shakespeare D, Ledger M, Kinzel V. Accuracy of implantation of components in the Oxford knee using the minimally invasive approach. Knee 2005; 12 (06) 405-409
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Asada S, Inoue S, Tsukamoto I, Mori S, Akagi M. Obliquity of tibial component after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee 2019; 26 (02) 410-415
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Devers BN, Conditt MA, Jamieson ML, Driscoll MD, Noble PC, Parsley BS. Does greater knee flexion increase patient function and satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty?. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26 (02) 178-186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Lee BS, Chung JW, Kim JM, Kim KA, Bin SI. High-flexion prosthesis improves function of TKA in Asian patients without decreasing early survivorship. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471 (05) 1504-1511
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Niki Y, Takeda Y, Udagawa K, Enomoto H, Toyama Y, Suda Y. Is greater than 145degrees of deep knee flexion under weight-bearing conditions safe after total knee arthroplasty?A fluoroscopic analysis of Japanese-style deep knee flexion. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B (06) 782-787
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Nerhus TK, Heir S, Svege I. et al. Time-dependent improvement in functional outcome following Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. A prospective longitudinal multicenter study involving 96 patients. Acta Orthop 2012; 83 (01) 46-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Baker PN, Petheram T, Avery PJ, Gregg PJ, Deehan DJ. Revision for unexplained pain following unicompartmental and total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94 (17) e126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Inui H, Taketomi S, Yamagami R, Tahara K, Tanaka S. Snapping pes syndrome after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res 2016; 28 (02) 172-175
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Hama S, Hamada D, Goto T. et al. Revision total knee arthroplasty for unexplained pain after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a case report. J Med Invest 2015; 62 (3-4): 261-263
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Rajgopal A, Panda I, Tyagi VC. Early failure with massive metallosis and posteromedial wear following atraumatic anterior cruciate ligament rupture after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Arthroplast Today 2017; 4 (01) 15-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 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