Predictors of Midterm Outcomes after Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty in Asians

Global mapping of institutional and hospital-based (Level II-IV) arthroplasty registries: a scoping review

PURPOSE

Four joint arthroplasty registries (JARs) levels exist based on the recorded data type. Level I JARs are national registries that record primary data. Hospital or institutional JARs (Level II-IV) document further data (patient-reported outcomes, demographic, radiographic). A worldwide list of Level II-IV JARs must be created to effectively assess and categorize these data.

METHODS

Our study is a systematic scoping review that followed the PRISMA guidelines and included 648 studies. Based on their publications, the study aimed to map the existing Level II-IV JARs worldwide. The secondary aim was to record their lifetime, publications' number and frequency and recognise differences with national JARs.

RESULTS

One hundred five Level II-IV JARs were identified. Forty-eight hospital-based, 45 institutional, and 12 regional JARs. Fifty JARs were found in America, 39 in Europe, nine in Asia, six in Oceania and one in Africa. They have published 485 cohorts, 91 case-series, 49 case-control, nine cross-sectional studies, eight registry protocols and six randomized trials. Most cohort studies were retrospective. Twenty-three per cent of papers studied patient-reported outcomes, 21.45% surgical complications, 13.73% postoperative clinical and 5.25% radiographic outcomes, and 11.88% were survival analyses. Forty-four JARs have published only one paper. Level I JARs primarily publish implant revision risk annual reports, while Level IV JARs collect comprehensive data to conduct retrospective cohort studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study mapping all Level II-IV JARs worldwide. Most JARs are found in Europe and America, reporting on retrospective cohorts, but only a few report on studies systematically.

Evaluating the Minimum Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State for the Womac Osteoarthritis Index after Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are standardized questionnaires that gather information on health-related quality of life directly from patients. Since a significant statistical mean change may not correspond to a clinical improvement, there is a need to calculate a considerable change in scores. This is done by the Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS). The objective of this article is to report the MCID and the PASS values of the WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster University) osteoarthritis index for patients undergoing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty (UKA). A total of 37 patients (25 females and 12 males; mean age 68 ± 8.1 years and mean BMI 28.7 ± 4) who underwent UKA were enrolled. All patients were assessed using the WOMAC and the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) questionnaires before and six months following the procedure. To measure the cut-off values for MCID, distribution methods and anchor methods were applied, while the PASS was assessed only via anchor approaches. The MCID related to the WOMAC average global score was 90.7 ± 7.6, the average pain dimension score was 93.2 ± 6.6, the average stiffness dimension score was 92.6 ± 17, and the average physical function dimension score was 89.7 ± 7.6. In terms of PASS, the normalized WOMAC was 82.8, the pain dimension was 87.5, the stiffness dimension was 93.7, and the functional dimension was 83.1. A 34.5 amelioration in the WOMAC score, from initial evaluation to final follow-up, using change in OKS > 5 as anchor, indicates that the patients' health state improved to a clinically significant degree. A value at least of 82.8 in WOMAC score after treatment denotes that the symptom state is deemed acceptable by most of the patients.

Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Minimal Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State for the Forgotten Joint Score

Background and Objectives: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a valid alternative to total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) in selected cases. After surgery, patients' experience and satisfaction were traditionally evaluated by pre- and postsurgical scores and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Otherwise, a statistically significant change does not necessarily correlate to a clinically meaningful improvement when measured using PROMs. To evaluate the real effect of a specific treatment and understand the difference between groups in a clinical trial, it is necessary to use a meaningful quantum of change on the score assessed. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) can provide this meaningful change. This paper aimed to calculate the MCID and the PASS of the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS-12) after UKA. Materials and Methods: A total of 40 patients with a mean age 72.5 ± 6.4 years undergoing UKA were assessed preoperatively and six months postsurgery using the FJS-12 and the Oxford Knee Score (OKS). The baseline and 6-month postoperative scores were compared using the Wilcoxon signed ranks test. The correlation was calculated with Spearman's rho. Both distribution-based approaches and anchor approaches were used to estimate MCID for the FJS-12. The 75th percentile and the Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve methods were used to calculate the PASS of FJS-12. Results: MCID estimates for normalized FJS-12 for UKA ranged from 5.68 to 19.82. The threshold of the FJS-12 with ROC method was 72.92 (AUC = 0.76). The cut-off value computed with the 75th percentile approach was 92.71. Conclusions: The MCID and PASS represent valid tools to assess the real perception of clinical improvement in patients who underwent UKA. The MCID value of FJS-12 was 12.5 for patients who underwent UKA. The value of the PASS for the FJS-12 in patients who underwent UKA was 72.92.

Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to patients with a ligamentous deficiency can cause biomechanically poor outcomes

PURPOSE

The aims of this study were to investigate the biomechanical effects of the deficiency of the collateral ligament and cruciate ligament in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in normal and varus knee patients using computational simulation.

METHODS

Validated finite-element (FE) models for conditions of various cruciate and collateral ligament deficiencies were developed to evaluate the biomechanical effects of ligamentous deficiency in UKA for normal and varus knee patients. Contact stresses on the polyethylene (PE) insert, contact stresses on the lateral articular cartilage, and quadriceps force were analyzed under gait-loading conditions.

RESULTS

Contact stresses on the PE insert and lateral articular cartilage as well as quadriceps force in a normal knee UKA FE model were increased in the order of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) deficiency, medial collateral ligament (MCL) deficiency, lateral collateral ligament (LCL) deficiency, and posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) deficiency in the stance phase of gait cycle, as compared with those in the model without ligamentous deficiency. In two or more multiple ligamentous deficiencies, contact stresses on the PE insert and articular lateral cartilage and quadriceps force were significantly increased versus in the case of single-ligament deficiency.

CONCLUSION

Poor outcomes of medial UKA in patients with ACL or MCL deficiency can be predicted. Care should be taken to extend the indications when performing medial UKA in patients with ligamentous deficiency, especially when varus knee with ACL or MCL deficiency is present.

Robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty can reduce radiologic outliers compared to conventional techniques

Background

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to those of conventional UKA in Asian patients.

Methods

Fifty-five patients underwent robot-assisted UKA and 57 patients underwent conventional UKA were assessed in this study. Preoperative and postoperative range of motion (ROM), American Knee Society (AKS) score, Western Ontario McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index scale score (WOMAC), and patellofemoral (PF) score values were compared between the two groups. The mechanical femorotibial angle (mFTA) and Kennedy zone were also measured. Coronal alignments of the femoral and tibial components and posterior slopes of the tibial component were compared. Additionally, polyethylene (PE) liner thicknesses were compared.

Results

There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding postoperative ROM, AKS, WOMAC and PF score. Robot group showed fewer radiologic outliers in terms of mFTA and coronal alignment of tibial and femoral components (p = 0.022, 0.037, 0.003). The two groups showed significantly different PE liner thicknesses (8.4 ± 0.8 versus 8.8 ± 0.9, p = 0.035). Robot group was the only influencing factor for reducing radiologic outlier (postoperative mFTA) in multivariate model (odds ratio: 2.833, p = 0.037).

Conclusion

In this study, robot-assisted UKA had many advantages over conventional UKA, such as its ability to achieve precise implant insertion and reduce radiologic outliers. Although the clinical outcomes of robot-assisted UKA over a short-term follow-up period were not significantly different compared to those of conventional UKA, longer follow-up period is needed to determine whether the improved radiologic accuracy of the components in robotic-assisted UKA will lead to better clinical outcomes and improved long-term survival.

Long-term outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients requiring high flexion: an average 10-year follow-up study

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the long-term survival of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) in the Asian population and assess differences in clinical outcomes between mobile- and fixed-bearing UKA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Among 111 cases of UKA that were performed by 1 surgeon from January 2002 to December 2009, we retrospectively reviewed 96 cases (36 mobile-bearing, 62 fixed-bearing) for this study. We examined cause of revision or failure, type of reoperation/revision, and duration from the surgery date to the revision upon reviewing the medical record. Survival analysis was conducted using the Kaplan-Meier method. Functional outcomes were evaluated based on range of motion and patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) for cases with at least 8 years of follow-up (average, 10.2 years).

RESULTS

Overall, the 10-year survival was 88% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-0.95], and the estimated mean survival time was 13.4 years (95% CI 12.5-14.2). In a comparison of survival between the mobile- and fixed-bearing groups, the former had a 10-year survival of 85% (95% CI, 0.72-0.97) and an estimated mean survival time of 13.5 years (95% CI 12.2-14.7) and the latter had a 10-year survival of 90% (95% CI 0.82-0.99) and an estimated mean survival time of 13.4 years (95% CI 12.3-14.4). Thus, there was no significant difference in survival between the two groups (log-rank test, p = 0.718). In addition, no significant difference in functional outcomes was observed between the two groups (p > 0.05 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

UKA performed in the Asian population showed a relatively good functional outcome and survival rate at an average 10-year follow-up. No difference in survival and PROs was observed according to the bearing type. Although the present study demonstrated a good survival rate, similar to that in other Western studies, further studies investigating the impact of the Asian lifestyle on the long-term survival of UKA is necessary.