A Comprehensive Evaluation of Lateral Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Short to Mid-Term Survivorship, and the Effect of Patient and Implant Characteristics: An Analysis of Data From the Dutch Arthroplasty Register

Machine Learning Did Not Outperform Conventional Competing Risk Modeling to Predict Revision Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Estimating the risk of revision after arthroplasty could inform patient and surgeon decision-making. However, there is a lack of well-performing prediction models assisting in this task, which may be due to current conventional modeling approaches such as traditional survivorship estimators (such as Kaplan-Meier) or competing risk estimators. Recent advances in machine learning survival analysis might improve decision support tools in this setting. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the performance of machine learning compared with that of conventional modeling to predict revision after arthroplasty.

QUESTION/PURPOSE

Does machine learning perform better than traditional regression models for estimating the risk of revision for patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty?

METHODS

Eleven datasets from published studies from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register reporting on factors associated with revision or survival after partial or total knee and hip arthroplasty between 2018 and 2022 were included in our study. The 11 datasets were observational registry studies, with a sample size ranging from 3038 to 218,214 procedures. We developed a set of time-to-event models for each dataset, leading to 11 comparisons. A set of predictors (factors associated with revision surgery) was identified based on the variables that were selected in the included studies. We assessed the predictive performance of two state-of-the-art statistical time-to-event models for 1-, 2-, and 3-year follow-up: a Fine and Gray model (which models the cumulative incidence of revision) and a cause-specific Cox model (which models the hazard of revision). These were compared with a machine-learning approach (a random survival forest model, which is a decision tree-based machine-learning algorithm for time-to-event analysis). Performance was assessed according to discriminative ability (time-dependent area under the receiver operating curve), calibration (slope and intercept), and overall prediction error (scaled Brier score). Discrimination, known as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, measures the model's ability to distinguish patients who achieved the outcomes from those who did not and ranges from 0.5 to 1.0, with 1.0 indicating the highest discrimination score and 0.50 the lowest. Calibration plots the predicted versus the observed probabilities; a perfect plot has an intercept of 0 and a slope of 1. The Brier score calculates a composite of discrimination and calibration, with 0 indicating perfect prediction and 1 the poorest. A scaled version of the Brier score, 1 - (model Brier score/null model Brier score), can be interpreted as the amount of overall prediction error.

RESULTS

Using machine learning survivorship analysis, we found no differences between the competing risks estimator and traditional regression models for patients undergoing arthroplasty in terms of discriminative ability (patients who received a revision compared with those who did not). We found no consistent differences between the validated performance (time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) of different modeling approaches because these values ranged between -0.04 and 0.03 across the 11 datasets (the time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the models across 11 datasets ranged between 0.52 to 0.68). In addition, the calibration metrics and scaled Brier scores produced comparable estimates, showing no advantage of machine learning over traditional regression models.

CONCLUSION

Machine learning did not outperform traditional regression models.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Neither machine learning modeling nor traditional regression methods were sufficiently accurate in order to offer prognostic information when predicting revision arthroplasty. The benefit of these modeling approaches may be limited in this context.

Effect of lower limb alignment on outcome after lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a retrospective study

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to investigate the correlation between lower limb alignment and patient outcomes after lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (LUKA).

METHODS

In this retrospective study, the information of 51 patients who underwent lateral UKA was collected after an average of 27months of follow-up (13 to 60 months). Evaluation indicators include the AKS and WOMAC score. The Kellgren-Lawrence grade is used to evaluate the severity of osteoarthritis, while the hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle is utilized to measure the valgus angle of lower limb alignment.

RESULT

Patients with postoperative valgus (≥ 3°) alignment had the best outcomes, while those with varus (≤-3°) alignment had the worst outcomes (p < 0.001). Furthermore, it was noted that patients with preoperative mild valgus (≤ 4°) alignment had worse postoperative outcomes than those with severe valgus (≥ 7°) alignment (p < 0.05). The study also revealed a positive correlation between postoperative valgus and WOMAC scores (p < 0.001), whereas a negative correlation was observed between the change in valgus angle and WOMAC scores (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

During follow-ups, we found that lower limb alignment seems to be an independent predictor of postoperative outcomes. It is recommended that more than 3° of valgus alignment should be maintained after LUKA. Surgeons performing lateral UKA should be cautious of overcorrecting alignment, particularly in patients with preoperative mild valgus alignment.

Lateral UKA can be a safe solution in a young patients' population: a 10-year follow-up report

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the long-term survivorship and functional outcomes of fixed-bearing lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) in a young patients' population with osteoarthritis limited to the lateral compartment.

METHODS

The study included a cohort of consecutive patients who underwent lateral UKA between January 2008 and December 2014 at a single high-volume surgical center. The surgical procedures were performed by experienced surgeons using a lateral parapatellar approach and fixed-bearing implants. Patient follow-up included a retrospective re-evaluation, clinical assessments, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and X-ray analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 40 lateral UKAs were analyzed, with 19 performed on the left and 21 on the right knee. The mean age of the patients at the time of surgery was 57.6 years, and the mean BMI was 24.8. At the final follow-up, 80% of patients achieved excellent outcomes (OKS > 41), and 20% had good outcomes (OKS: 34-41). No patients exhibited fair or poor outcomes. The mean FJS at the final follow-up was 82.8. The mean WOMAC was 10.5. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed a survivorship rate of 93.1% at 10 years, considering revision for any reason as endpoint.

CONCLUSIONS

Lateral UKA proved to be an effective treatment option for osteoarthritis affecting the lateral compartment of the knee. The study demonstrated a high survivorship rate and favorable functional outcomes at a mean follow-up of 132.7 months. These findings highlight the potential benefits of fixed-bearing lateral UKA in selected patients with lateral compartment knee pathology.

Computed tomography-based patient-specific cutting guides used for positioning of the femoral component of implants during unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a cadaver study

BACKGROUND

To investigate whether patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) improves the femoral component positioning of implants during unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) using cadaver bone models.

METHODS

Fifty adult cadaveric femoral bone specimens collected from February 2016-2018, were randomized to receive medial UKA with a PSI guide (n = 25) or conventional instrumentation (CI) (n = 25). Standard anteroposterior and lateral view radiographs were obtained postoperatively to assess the coronal and sagittal positioning of the femoral prostheses, respectively. The osteotomy time was recorded to assess the convenience of PSI in guiding osteotomy.

RESULTS

Osteotomy time significantly shortened in the PSI group (3.12 ± 0.65 versus 4.33 ± 0.73 min, p < 0.001). There was a significant difference in the postoperative coronal alignment of the femoral component between the PSI and CI groups (varus/valgus angle: 1.43 ± 0.93° vs. 2.65 ± 1.50°, p = 0.001). The prevalence of outliers in coronal alignment was lower in the PSI than the CI group (2/25, 8% vs. 9/25, 36%). Sagittal posterior slope angle of the femoral component was significantly different between the two groups (8.80 ± 0.65° and 6.29 ± 1.88° in the CI and PSI groups, respectively, p < 0.001). The malalignment rate of the femoral component in the sagittal plane was 60% in the CI group, whereas no positioning deviation was observed in the PSI group.

CONCLUSION

This study used a cadaver model to support the fact that CT-based PSI shows an advantage over CI in optimizing implant positioning for UKAs.

Fixed-Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty of the Lateral Compartment: A Series of 246 Cases

Background

Isolated osteoarthritis of the lateral compartment of the knee is less common than that of the medial compartment, resulting in significantly fewer lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKAs) being performed. This study aimed to evaluate results of a fixed-bearing UKA for the treatment of lateral compartment osteoarthritis of the knee.

Methods

A prospectively collected cohort of 255 patients undergoing fixed-bearing UKA of the lateral compartment using the Triathlon PKR (Stryker, Warsaw, IND) implant with a minimum 2-year follow-up was reviewed. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, radiographic alignment, complications, reoperations, and revisions were recorded. Patient factors and pre- and post-surgical alignment were assessed for their association with a minimum important change (MIC) of the total WOMAC score.

Results

A total of 246 implants with a mean follow-up of 6.6 years (2-10.8 years) were included (4% lost to follow-up). The total WOMAC score increased from 61.3 ± 3.5 to 85.3 ± 7.5, exceeding the MIC in 215 patients (88%). Exceeding the MIC was not associated with age, body mass index, or alignment. The 5-year implant revision rate was 1.6% (3/187).

Conclusions

The fixed-bearing Stryker Triathlon PKR implant for lateral UKA resulted in good clinical outcomes with a low revision rate at midterm follow-up. Body mass index, age, and pre- and post-surgical alignment did not correlate with the clinical outcome. Long-term follow-up is necessary to determine if the clinical improvement and low revision rate can be maintained.

Short- to mid-term results of minimally invasive lateral unicompartmental knee replacement: 133 cases in a non-designer series

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the current study was to demonstrate short- to mid-term survivorship as well as clinical outcome of lateral unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) with a fixed-bearing (FB) design from a non-designer center using the Oxford Fixed Lateral prosthesis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-center retrospective cohort study reports the results of 133 consecutive lateral FB-UKR. Survivorship analysis was performed with different endpoints and clinical outcome was measured using the Oxford-Knee-Score (OKS), American-Knee-Society-Score (AKSS-O), range-of-motion (ROM) and visual-analog-scale for pain (VAS).

RESULTS

There were two revision surgeries with conversion to total knee replacements (TKR) due to persistent pain resulting in a survival rate of 98.5% (95% CI 93.5-99.6) with a mean follow-up (FU) of 3.3 ± 1.8 years (range 1-8.5). All outcome scores, VAS and ROM showed a significant improvement at final FU (p < 0.001). The OKS improved from 26 ± 7.8 (range 11-45) preoperatively to 39 ± 8.3 (range 13-48), the AKSS-O from 49.2 ± 14.6 (range 18-90) to 81.8 ± 15.1 (range 40-100), the AKSS-F from 53 ± 23.7 (range 0-100) to 80.4 ± 21.4 (range 5-100) and the ROM from 118 ± 17 (range 90-160) to 134 ± 9.5 (range 100-155).

CONCLUSIONS

The short- to mid-term results following lateral FB-UKR demonstrate a high survivorship and good clinical outcome from an independent series. We, therefore, suggest that FB-UKR is a safe treatment option for isolated lateral OA if sufficient surgical experience is provided.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective cohort study, level IV.

Fixed-bearing is superior to mobile-bearing in lateral unicompartmental knee replacement: a retrospective matched-pairs analysis

PURPOSE

Due to low incidence of isolated lateral osteoarthritis (OA), there are limited data on whether a fixed-bearing (FB) or a mobile-bearing (MB) design is superior for lateral unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). The aim of this matched-pairs analysis was to compare both designs in terms of implant survival and clinical outcome.

METHODS

Patients who received MB-UKR (Group A) and FB-UKR (Group B) at a single centre were matched according to gender, age at time of surgery and body mass index (BMI). Survivorship analysis was performed with the endpoint set as "revision for any reason". Clinical outcome was assessed using the Oxford knee score (OKS), visual analogue scale for pain (VAS), patients' satisfaction, University of California Los Angeles activity scale (UCLA) and the Tegner activity score (TAS).

RESULTS

A total of 60 matched pairs were included with a mean follow-up (FU) of 3.4 ± 1.3 (range 1.2-5.0) years in Group A and 2.7 ± 1.2 (range 1.0-5.0) years in Group B. Survivorship between both groups differed significantly (Group A: 78.7%; Group B: 98.3%, p = 0.003) with bearing dislocation being the most common reason for revision in Group A (46.2%). The relative and absolute risk reduction were 92.2% and 20%, respectively, with 5 being the number needed to treat. There were no differences in OKS (Group A: 41.6 ± 6.5; Group B: 40.4 ± 7.7), VAS (Group A: 2.9 ± 3.2; Group B: 1.6 ± 2.2), UCLA (Group A: 5.7 ± 1.3; Group B: 5.9 ± 1.8) and TAS (Group A: 3.0 ± 1.0; Group B: 3.1 ± 1.2) between both groups on follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Despite modern prosthesis design and surgical technique, implant survival of lateral MB-UKR is lower than that of FB-UKR on the short- to mid-term due to bearing dislocation as the most common cause of failure. Since clinical results are equivalent in both groups, FB-UKR should be preferred in treatment of isolated lateral OA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective case-control study, Level III.

Mild Valgus Alignment After Lateral Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Led to Lower Functional Results and Survivorship at Mean 8-Year Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

In medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), the best results and the highest survivorship are found by mild undercorrection of varus deformities. In lateral UKA, the desirable amount of valgus undercorrection has not yet been determined. The purposes of this study were to present the results of a consecutive series of lateral UKAs and to investigate the effect of postoperative limb alignment on them.

METHODS

A total of 161 lateral UKA were reviewed. Outcomes studied included range of motion (ROM), Knee Society Score (KSS), University of California Los Angeles Activity Score, Tegner Activity Scale, Forgotten Joint Score, visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, and survivorship. Patients were divided into two groups according to postoperative alignment: group A (hip-knee-ankle ≥184°, 79 UKA) and group B (hip-knee-ankle <184°, 82 UKA).

RESULTS

At a mean follow-up of 8 years (range, 2-18), ROM (P < .01); KSS-C (P < .01); KSS-F (P < .01); VAS (P < .01) improved from baseline. No differences were noted in postoperative ROM, VAS, University of California Los Angeles, Tegner Activity Scale, and Forgotten Joint Score between groups. Group A showed higher postoperative clinical and functional KSS (P < .01) and higher survivorship (96.2 versus 91.5%, P = .01) than group B.

CONCLUSION

Mild valgus alignment (3° or less) after lateral UKA is linked to lower clinical and functional scores and lower survivorship compared to moderate valgus (over 4°) at mean 8-year follow-up. More undercorrection of the coronal deformity in lateral UKA compared to medial UKA is desirable to get the best results.

Similar survivorship at the 5-year follow-up comparing robotic-assisted and conventional lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

PURPOSE

This retrospective study aims to analyse the survivorship and functional outcomes of two samples with similar preoperative clinical and demographic data of lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) performed with robotic and conventional surgery at a minimum 5-year follow-up.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, the clinical records of two cohorts for 95 lateral UKA implants were analysed. The first cohort consisted of 43 patients with cemented lateral UKA performed with the conventional procedure (Conventional group). The second cohort consisted of 52 patients who received robot-assisted cemented lateral UKA (Robotic group). Clinical evaluation of the two samples entailed evaluating the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score divided into subscales (symptoms and stiffness, pain, function in daily living, function in sport and recreation and quality of life) for each patient. Revision was defined as the failure of the implant (periprosthetic joint infection, periprosthetic fracture or aseptic loosening), and survival was based on implant revision.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up time was 90.3 ± 9.1 months for the Conventional Group and 95.4 ± 11.0 months for the Robotic Group (n.s.). Each patient was clinically evaluated on the day before surgery (T₀), at a minimum 1-year follow-up (T₁) and at a minimum 5-year follow-up (T₂). In both groups, all clinical scores improved between T₀ and T₁ and between T₀ and T₂ (p < 0.05); for both groups, no differences were noted in any clinical scores between T₁ and T₂ (n.s.). No significant differences in any clinical score were found between the two groups at each follow-up (n.s.). Survival analysis reported no differences between the two groups at the final 1-year follow-up, with three failures (2 aseptic loosening and 1 periprosthetic fracture) in the Conventional group and two failures (1 patellofemoral osteoarthritis and 1 inexplicable pain) in the Robotic group (n.s.).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows excellent clinical outcomes and revision rates in robotic arm-assisted and manual techniques for lateral UKA, with no clinical differences at medium- to long-term follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III-comparative study.

Disease progression, aseptic loosening and bearing dislocations are the main revision indications after lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

IMPORTANCE

Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a surgical option for patients with isolated lateral osteoarthritis however, the procedure has higher revision rates than medial UKA. The reason for this remains unclear; therefore, a better understanding of the indications for lateral UKA revision is needed.

AIM

The primary aim of this systematic review was to identify revision indications for lateral UKA. Secondary aims were to further investigate if revision indications were influenced by implant design and time from surgery.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

A systematic literature review was performed according to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Search was performed in January 2022 in MedLine, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library using the keywords "knee arthroplasty", "unicompartmental", "reoperation", synonyms and abbreviations. Articles published in 2000-2021 that were at least level III retrospective cohort studies with at least 10 lateral UKAs and reported all failure modes were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. Revision indications, patient characteristics, study design, implant types and time to failure were extracted from the selected studies. Collated data were tabulated and differences were tested using Chi-square or Fisher's exact test.

FINDINGS

A total of 29 cohort and 4 registry studies that included 7,668 UKAs met the inclusion criteria. Studies were judged as having moderate or severe risk of bias; this was associated with the retrospective nature of studies required to investigate long-term outcomes of knee arthroplasty. The main indications for lateral UKA revision were OA progression (35%), aseptic loosening (17%) and bearing dislocation (14%). The incidence of revision was similar for mobile-bearing implants (7.6%) and fixed-bearing (6.4%). For mobile-bearing implants, there was introduction of bearing dislocations as an additional mode of failure (24% cf. 0%, p < 0.001). For fixed-bearing implants, the incidence of revision was higher for all-poly-ethylene (13.9%) than metal-backed (1.8%) tibial components. Early lateral UKA failures were associated with bearing dislocations (sequential decrease from 69% under 6 months to 0% 10+ years, p < 0.001), whereas late failures were associated with OA progression (sequential increase from 0% under 6 months to 100% > 10+ years, p < 0.01). Compared with medial UKA, OA progression (41% cf. 30%, p = 0.004), malalignment (2.7% cf. 0.8%, p = 0.02), instability (4% cf. 1%, p = 0.02) and bearing dislocations (20% cf. 10%, p < 0.001) were more common for lateral UKA.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

OA progression, aseptic loosening and bearing dislocation were the three main revision indications for lateral UKA. Compared to medial UKA, OA progression, malalignment, instability and bearing dislocations were more common revision indications for lateral UKA. Higher survivorship of metal-backed fixed-bearing implants was found. The findings suggest that the outcomes of lateral UKA may be improved with more optimal alignment, gap balancing and patient selection.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III systematic review.

Isolated Lateral Tibiofemoral Compartment Osteoarthritis: Survivorship and Patient Acceptable Symptom State After Lateral Fixed-Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty at Mean 10-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is an excellent option to alleviate disability and restore function in patients with lateral compartment knee osteoarthritis (OA). The purpose of the present study was to determine the survivorship and long-term outcomes in both younger/middle-aged and older patients with lateral compartment OA following non-robotically-assisted, fixed-bearing lateral UKA and to determine if an acceptable symptom state can be achieved.

METHODS

All patients were managed with fixed-bearing lateral UKA by a single surgeon utilizing a lateral parapatellar approach without robotic assistance. The primary outcome variables were the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and Sport subscale scores. In addition, the other KOOS subscores, the Lysholm score, the achievement of the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), and the Veterans RAND (VR-12) Physical Component Summary score (PCS) and Mental Component Summary score (MCS) were collected. Failure was defined as conversion to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Patients were divided into 2 cohorts: younger/middle-aged patients (<60 years of age) and older patients (≥60 years of age).

RESULTS

A cohort of 256 patients underwent medial (n = 193) or lateral (n = 63) UKA. Sixty-one patients met the inclusion criteria. At mean of 10 years (range, 4 to 17 years) of follow-up, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of any patient-reported outcome measures (p > 0.05). The percentage of patients in whom PASS was achieved on the KOOS ADL and Sport subscores was 82% and 88%, respectively, in the younger cohort and 80% and 80%, respectively, in the older cohort. The mean survival estimate of the prothesis was 15.3 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.5 to 16.2 years) for the entire cohort. The estimated rate of implant survival in the younger cohort was 100% at 5 and 10 years, and the estimated rate of implant survival in the older cohort was 98% at 5 years and 96% at 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Lateral fixed-bearing, non-robotic UKA for the treatment of isolated lateral compartment OA resulted in >80% of patients reaching an acceptable symptom state in terms of both activities of daily living and sporting activities. UKA provides an excellent option that provides longevity with high PASS rates and return to activities with a low risk of complications and failure.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Distal femoral osteotomy versus lateral unicompartmental arthroplasty for isolated lateral tibiofemoral osteoarthritis with intra-articular and extra-articular deformity: a propensity score-matched analysis

Purpose

Lateral unicompartmental arthroplasty (UKA) and distal femoral osteotomy (DFO) represent surgical solutions in cases of valgus malalignment and isolated lateral osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. The aim of the present study was to assess the clinical results, complications, and the overall postoperative alignment of a series of DFO and lateral UKA with a minimum 2-year follow-up in active middle-aged patients.

Methods

Patients with valgus knee and isolated lateral OA who underwent opening-wedge DFO or UKA from 2017 to 2019 were reviewed. Each patient was characterized by a joint line convergence angle (JLCA) > 3° and mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA) < 87°. We excluded patients who underwent meniscus or osteochondral allograft during DFO. The Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), complications, and postoperative alignment were assessed. Propensity score matching was used to identify comparable patients.

Results

The DFO and lateral UKA groups consisted of 29 patients each. No statistically significant differences in gender, age, body mass index (BMI), length of follow-up, or limb deformity were reported between the two groups. In the DFO group, OKS was reported to improve from 27.51 to 38.59 (p < 0.05) and KOOS from 51.14 to 67.2 (p < 0.05). Similarly, in the UKA group, OKS improved from 26.23 to 35.43 (p < 0.05) and KOOS from 50.12 to 65.91 (p < 0.05). However, the improvement in OKS and KOOS (delta) did not differ between groups (p = 0.35 and p = 0.95). The DFO and UKA groups were characterized by similar postoperative hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle measurements of −3.26 and −3.00, respectively (p = 0.65). No patients in the UKA group underwent revision or other knee surgeries during follow-up. No infections were detected in either group. In the DFO group, no cases of nonunion or delayed union were reported. However, 40% of DFO patients underwent plate removal. One patient in each group was characterized by progression of medial OA with Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grade > 3.

Conclusion

UKA and DFO represent an effective treatment in lateral knee OA with intra-articular and extra-articular deformity. Both surgeries were able to provide a significant and comparable clinical improvement.

Level of evidence: III, comparative retrospective cohort study.

Does Implant Design Influence Failure Rate of Lateral Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty? A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a viable solution for isolated lateral compartment arthritis. Several prosthetic designs are available such as fixed-bearing metal-backed (FB M-B), fixed-bearing all-polyethylene (FB A-P), and mobile-bearing metal-backed (MB M-B) implants. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare failure rates of different prosthetic designs.

METHODS

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses systematic review was conducted using 4 databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and PubMed) to identify all studies that investigate outcomes of lateral UKA. Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria, and failure rates were compared by implant type and follow-up time separately in order to assess potential confounding factors. Two separate analyses have been performed among different implant designs (FB M-B vs FB A-P vs MB M-B) and different follow-ups (<5 years, between 5 and 10 years, >10 years).

RESULTS

The failure rate of FB M-B lateral UKA was significantly lower compared to other lateral UKA designs present in the market (0.8% vs 8.6% and 7.1% for FB M-B, FB A-P, and MB M-B, respectively). No significative difference among groups has been detected when comparing all implants with regard to follow-up time.

CONCLUSION

Considering actual evidence, for a surgeon approaching lateral UKA, the FB M-B design is preferable, given the lower failure rates and subsequently a longer implant survivorship.

Early results of fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee replacement designed for the lateral compartment

Background

Isolated lateral compartment knee arthritis is less prevalent than medial. While the reported results of medial unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) have been good and comparable to total knee replacement, the results of lateral UKR have been mixed. We present the short-term results and survivorship of a fixed-bearing UKR designed specifically for the lateral compartment.

Methods

We report the result of 130 primary fixed-bearing lateral Oxford (FLO) UKRs (123 patients) performed between 2015 and 2019 with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. The indications for lateral UKR were: isolated lateral osteoarthritis (n = 122), post-trauma (n = 5) and osteonecrosis (n = 3). The mean age was 69.1 (± 11.6), mean BMI 28.4 (± 4.9), 66.9% female, 60% right-sided, and mean follow-up 3 (range 1–4.8 years, standard deviation ± 1) years. The primary outcome measure was the Oxford knee score (OKS). Survival analysis was performed with “revision for any reason”, “reoperation”, and “implant failure” as the endpoints.

Results

Six patients died from unrelated reasons. None of the implants failed. One required the addition of a medial UKR for medial arthritis. There were no other reoperations. At 4 years, the survival for implant failure was 100% and for both revision and all reoperations was 99.5% (95% CI 96.7–99.9%). At the last review, at a mean of 3 years, the mean Oxford knee score was 41.

Conclusion

The good survivorship and outcome scores suggest that UKR designed for the lateral compartment is an excellent alternative to total knee replacement in selected patients with isolated lateral tibiofemoral arthritis at short-term follow-up.

Cemented Lateral Unicompartmental Knee Replacement: A retrospective single centre independent series

Background

Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) has functional and economic benefits when compared with total knee replacement, however it is technically demanding and may be associated with higher failure rates. The primary aim of this independent series study was to evaluate the survival of lateral UKRs implanted in our institution and their clinical outcomes. The secondary outcome was to compare the results of mobile and fixed-bearing prostheses.

Methods

This is a retrospective series study of 183 cemented lateral UKRs implanted in 170 patients, for advanced isolated lateral compartment arthritis, under the care of two senior surgeons. Fixed or mobile-bearing prostheses were used according to the surgeon's preference. Kaplan Meier analysis was used to evaluate prosthesis survival with the endpoint being revision for any reason. A subgroup analysis of survival was also done for each bearing type. Functional outcomes were evaluated using the Oxford knee score (OKS) at final follow-up.

Results

This series included 103 Fixed-bearing and 80 mobile-bearing prostheses. Median follow-up was 6.9 years. 9 knees required revision. The commonest reason for revision was progression of arthritis to the medial compartment. Dislocation was the commonest cause of revision in the mobile-bearing group. Survival at 10 years was 91.9% with no significant difference ( p = 0.083) between bearing types (fixed-bearing 93.8% and mobile-bearing 90.6%). The OKS were comparable in both groups, the mean OKS was 44/48.

Conclusion

Good survival and functional outcomes can be achieved using cemented lateral UKRs with both bearing types. There was a trend towards superior outcomes in the fixed-bearing group.

Robotic-assisted knee arthroplasty: an evolution in progress. A concise review of the available systems and the data supporting them

INTRODUCTION

A review of the data supporting robotic systems currently available is presented focussing on precision and reproducibility, radiological outcomes, clinical outcomes, and survivorship.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Scientific literature published on robotic systems for knee arthroplasty was reviewed using the reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Inclusion criteria were any study involving robotic-assisted UKA or TKA that reported precision of implant positioning or functional outcomes or range of motion or survivorship, including cadaveric or dry bone studies with a minimum of 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies were identified for robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, and 24 studies for robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Those that reported on radiological outcomes or cadaver studies consistently demonstrated improved precision with the use of robotic systems irrespective of the system. PROMS and survival data demonstrated equivalent short-term results. However, many studies reported outcomes inconsistently and few had long-term clinical follow-up or survivorship data.

CONCLUSIONS

This review adds to the body of evidence supporting improved precision and reproducibility with robotic assistance in knee arthroplasty. Despite intensive funding of research into robotic knee systems, there remains considerable heterogeneity in exposure and outcome analysis and few quality long-term studies demonstrating translation to better clinical outcomes and implant survivorship.

Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is a safe procedure for post-traumatic osteoarthritis after lateral tibial plateau fracture: a case-control study at 10-year follow-up

PURPOSE

Very few studies focus on lateral unicompartmental arthroplasty (LUKA) in the setting of post-traumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA). The hypothesis of our study is that LUKA is an effective procedure for isolated lateral PTOA with similar outcomes to non-traumatic LUKA.

METHODS

Between 1990 and 2016, eighteen LUKA performed for isolated lateral tibiofemoral osteoarthritis secondary to tibial plateau fracture were retrospectively reviewed (post-traumatic group) and matched with a control group of thirty-six LUKA performed for non-traumatic OA. Clinical (International Knee Score), radiological outcomes and revision rate were compared between the two groups with a minimum follow-up of three years.

RESULTS

With a mean follow-up of 10.1 years, postoperative IKS scores were similar between the two groups (IKS Knee: 89.1 (control) versus 85 (p = 0.03) and IKS Function: 85.9 (control) versus 77.9 (n.s.). Clinical improvement was greater for the post-traumatic group. No difference was observed with regard to revision rate (3/18 (16.7%) cases in the post-traumatic group and 7/36 (19.4%) in the control group, n.s.) or polyethylene wear per year between the two groups. The revision free-survival rate was 64.8% for the post-traumatic group and 58.8% for the control group at 22-year follow-up (n.s.).

CONCLUSION

LUKA is an effective procedure at long-term for patients suffering from isolated lateral PTOA with similar clinical and radiographic results compared to LUKA performed for non-traumatic OA and without increased risk of revision or prosthetic wear.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: A review

Isolated lateral compartment osteoarthritis of the knee is a rare condition affecting approximately 1% of the population, which is ten times less common than osteoarthritis affecting only the medial compartment. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has many potential advantages over total knee arthroplasty. The benefits of UKA include a smaller incision, preservation of more native tissue (including cruciate ligaments and bone), decreased blood loss, and better overall proprioception. When UKA was first introduced in the 1970s, the outcomes of medial UKA (MUKA) were poor, but the few cases of lateral UKA (LUKA) showed promise. Since that time, there has been a relative paucity of literature focused specifically on LUKA given it is a rare procedure. Refinements in patient selection criteria, implant design, and surgical technique have been made leading to increased popularity. A review of the recent literature reveals that LUKA is associated with excellent long-term clinical outcomes and implant survivorship when performed in properly selected patients. Implant design options include fixed vs mobile bearing as well as metal backed vs all polyethylene tibial component, with improved outcomes noted with fixed bearing designs. Three reasons cited for revision (i.e., fracture of the femoral component, fracture of the tibial component, and valgus malalignment) had been reported in past literature but not recently. Presently, while rare, the most common cause of failure and need for revision are osteoarthritis progression and aseptic loosening. Despite the need for an occasional revision procedure, the survivorship of LUKA is comparable to MUKA, although it should be noted that outcomes of MUKA have been notably varied. Continued pursuit of improved techniques and implant designs will continue to show LUKA to be an excellent procedure for appropriately indicated patients.