Excellent outcomes with combined single stage Physica ZUK medial unicompartment knee replacement and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction results in young, active patients with instability and osteoarthritis with a mean follow up of 5 years

Unicompartmental knee replacement: controversies and technical considerations

BACKGROUND

Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is one of the effective interventions for the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. Moreover, it has multiple advantages over total knee arthroplasty (TKA), including reduced intraoperative blood loss, decreased risk of transfusion, and faster recovery. This study aimed to discuss critical technical considerations regarding UKR and some of the controversies and updates.

METHODS

We conducted a review to provide an overview of the controversies and technical considerations about UKR in several aspects. Only peer-reviewed articles were included, up to December 2023 using PubMed, Google Scholar, ERIC, and Cochrane database for systematic reviews databases.

RESULT

UKR is associated with superior patient-reported clinical and functional outcomes, as well as shorter hospital stays, fewer postoperative complications, and revealed favorable outcomes in patients' return to sport. The choice between mobile- and fixed-bearing prostheses depends, in part, on the surgeon's preference. The mobile-bearing UKR is a less constrained prosthesis and can potentially result in less wear, but it is more technically demanding. While no significant difference between mobile-bearing versus fixed-bearing prostheses, cementless is superior to cemented design. Furthermore, UKR can be a good alternative for high tibial osteotomy (HTO) and still can be considered after a failed HTO. Lastly, recent reviews have shown a revision rate comparable to that of TKA. This is probably influenced by Improved comprehension of the best indications, patient selection criteria, as well as of the design, materials, and technological advances.

CONCLUSION

UKR treatment for unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis is secure and effective. Based on clinical and functional outcomes, decreased morbidity and mortality, and cost-effectiveness, long-term studies suggest that UKR is superior to TKA. Further investigation in this area is warranted.

Unicompartmental knee replacement combined with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction provides comparable results to total knee replacement with no increased risk of complications

INTRODUCTION

There is controversy about the management of unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis (OA) in young, active patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) insufficiency. This study compares the subjective, radiological, and functional results of total knee replacement (TKR) vs. combined medial unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) with ACL reconstruction.

METHOD

Twelve patients suffering from medial OA and ACL deficiency with varus knee deformity and/or tibial slope <10° and absence of patellofemoral-related problems were eligible for combined UKR and ACL reconstruction (Group A). Twenty-six patients matched for age, male/female ratio and body mass index who received TKR in the same time frame were included as a control group (Group B). Oxford Knee Score (OKS), WOMAC index of osteoarthritis, Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and routine X-rays were used for assessment.

RESULTS

Ten years after surgery, the mean overall KOOS score, OKS, WOMAC index increased from preoperatively, showing a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001). In terms of KOOS, OKS, or WOMAC scores at the most recent follow-up, there was no discernible difference between the groups (p = n.s.). Three years following surgery, one female patient in group A received revision TKR due to the lateral compartment's osteoarthritis developing and the patient's pain persisting. Concerning radiographic assessment, at the most recent follow-up (average 7.9 years in group A and 8.8 years in group B), there were no radiographic indications of implant loosening or proof of pathologic radiolucent lines.

CONCLUSIONS

UKR combined with ACL restoration offers clinical and radiographic outcomes comparable to TKR 10 years following surgery with no elevated risk of complications.

Combined treatment with medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is effective on long-term follow-up

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the long-term outcome of combined medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). The authors hypothesized that the combined procedure leads to good long-term outcome in patients with isolated medial knee osteoarthritis (OA) and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) deficiency.

METHODS

Twenty-three patients with ACL deficiency and concomitant medial knee OA were treated from 2008 to 2016 with a combined UKA (Oxford Partial Knee) and ACLR using a hamstring tendon autograft. The follow-up assessment included VAS pain score, Lysholm score, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), American Knee Society scores (AKSS), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC 2000), Tegner and UCLA activity scores. Instrumented laxity test was done using the KT-1000 arthrometer. Survivorship analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Implant loosening and disease progression was assessed by conventional radiography.

RESULTS

Average follow-up duration was 10 years (6-14.5). VAS, Lysholm, Tegner and UCLA scores improved significantly. OKS, AKSS and IKDC 2000 showed excellent results on follow-up. Implant survivorship was 91.4% at 14.5 years. There were 2 revisions with conversion to total knee arthroplasty at 6 and 12 years postoperatively due to trauma and disease progression, respectively. There were no radiological or clinical signs of instability or disease progression in any of the remaining knees. The side-to-side difference using the KT-1000 arthrometer was insignificant.

CONCLUSIONS

UKA combined with ACLR is an effective therapeutic option with good outcome and return to sport rate on the long-term.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.