Accuracy and completeness of registry-reported unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revision.

Journal and index pages often block iframe embedding. This reader keeps the evidence details in Orthonotes and leaves the source page one click away.

Abstract

[Indexed for MEDLINE] 9. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021 Apr 2;22(1):326. doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-04185-w. Better short-term function after unicompartmental compared to total knee arthroplasty. Tille E(1), Beyer F(2), Auerbach K(3), Tinius M(4), Lützner J(2). Author information: (1)University Center for Orthopaedic, Trauma- and Plastic Surgery, University Medicine Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany. eric.tille@uniklinikum-dresden.de. (2)University Center for Orthopaedic, Trauma- and Plastic Surgery, University Medicine Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany. (3)Arthromed Praxisklinik Chemnitz, Chemnitz, Germany. (4)Gelenkzentrum Chemnitz, Chemnitz, Germany. BACKGROUND: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is an established treatment option for patients with unicompartmental osteoarthritis (OA). However, strict patient selection is crucial for its success. The proposed advantages include nearly natural knee kinematics, faster rehabilitation and better functional outcomes. Despite the aforementioned facts and it's proven cost-effectiveness, there are still hesitations for the use of UKA as an alternative to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Key objectives of this study were therefore to assess clinical and patient-reported outcome (PRO) as well as patient's satisfaction after medial UKA in comparison to TKA. METHODS: To assess the outcome after UKA we conducted a prospective multi-center study. 116 patients with unicompartmental OA and indication for UKA were included. Overall 54 females and 62 males with an average age of 62.7 years (±9.8) and an average body mass index (BMI) of 29.2 (± 3.7) were recruited. Clinical results and PRO were assessed using the Knee Society Score (KSS). Follow-ups took place 3 months, 1 and 2 years after surgery including clinical examination, radiographs, assessment of PRO and adverse events. Pain and satisfaction was evaluated using a visual analog scale (VAS, 0 (worst) to 10 (best)). For comparison with TKA a propensity score matched-pair analysis was performed to eliminate confounders. Matching criteria were gender, patient's age, BMI and comorbidities. A total of 116 matched-pairs were analysed. RESULTS: There was no revision in the UKA group until 2 years after surgery. Revision rates were higher in the TKA group (0.6%). Preoperative KSS-Scores were higher within the UKA cohort (p