Dataset Information

Functional results of total-knee arthroplasty versus medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: two-year results of a randomised, assessor-blinded multicentre trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The primary objective of the trial was to assess the clinical effectiveness of medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty in patients with isolated medial osteoarthritis of the knee.

Design

Prospective, randomised, 2 years, assessor-blind, multicentre, superiority trial.

Setting

The patients were enrolled between December 2015 and May 2018 from the outpatient clinics of three public high-volume arthroplasty hospitals (Finland).

Participants

We recruited 143 patients with symptomatic-isolated medial osteoarthritis of the knee needing an arthroplasty procedure. All the patients were suitable for both unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasties. Population was selected as the end-stage-isolated medial osteoarthritis.

Interventions

All patients, randomized 1:1, received a medial unicompartmental arthroplasty or a total knee arthroplasty through a similar midline skin incision. Patients were blinded to the type of arthroplasty for the whole 2 years of follow-up.

Main outcome measures

Primary outcome measure was between-group differences in the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and secondary outcome Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Score (KOOS) at 2 years postoperatively. The changes within and between the groups were analysed with analysis of variance for repeated measurements.

Results

The primary outcome was comparable for medial unicompartmental arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty at 2 years. The mean difference in the OKS between the groups was 1.6 points (95% CI -0.7 to 3.9). In the KOOS subscales, the mean difference between the groups was 0.1 points (95% CI -4.8 to 5.0) for pain, 7.8 points (95% CI 1.5 to 14.0) for symptoms, 4.3 points (95% CI -0.6 to 9.2) for function in daily living, 4.3 points (95% CI -3.0 to 11.6) for function in sports, and 2.1 points (95% CI -4.8 to 9.1) for knee-related quality of life.

Conclusions

The recovery after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty was faster compared with total knee arthroplasty, but unicompartmental arthroplasty did not provide a better patient-reported outcome at 2 years.

Trial registration number

NCT02481427.

SUBMITTER: Knifsund J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8231055 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere remains a paucity of clinical studies assessing how any differences in accuracy of implant positioning between robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (RO UKA) and conventional jig-based unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (CO UKA) translate to patient satisfaction, functional outcomes, and implant survivorship. The objectives of this study are to compare accuracy of implant positioning, limb alignment, patient satisfaction, functional outcomes, implant survivorship, cost-effectiveness, and complications in CO UKA versus RO UKA. Computer navigation will be used to assess intraoperative knee kinematics in all patients undergoing CO UKA.Methods and analysisThis prospective randomised controlled trial will include 140 patients with symptomatic medial compartment knee arthritis undergoing primary UKA. Following informed consent, patients will be randomised to CO UKA (control group) or RO UKA (investigation group) at a ratio of 1:1 using an online random number generator. The primary objective of this study is to compare accuracy of implant positioning in CO UKA versus RO UKA. The secondary objectives are to compare the following outcomes between the two treatment groups: limb alignment, surgical efficiency, postoperative functional rehabilitation, functional outcomes, quality of life, range of motion, resource use, cost effectivness, and complications. Observers will review patients at regular intervals for 2 years after surgery to record predefined study outcomes pertaining to these objectives. Ethical approval was obtained from the London-Bloomsbury Research Ethics Committee, UK. The study is sponsored by University College London, UK.DiscussionThis study compares a comprehensive and robust range of clinical, functional, and radiological outcomes in CO UKA versus RO UKA. The findings of this study will provide an improved understanding of the differences in CO UKA versus RO UKA with respect to accuracy of implant positioning, patient satisfaction, functional outcomes, implant survivorship, cost-effectiveness, and complications.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04095637 . Registered on 19 September 2019.

Project description:BACKGROUND:This prospective study evaluates outcomes and reoperation rates for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) from a single non-designer surgeon using relatively extended criteria of degenerative changes of grade 2 or above in either or both non-operated compartments. METHODS:187 consecutive medial mobile bearing UKA implants were included after history, clinical assessment and radiological evaluation. 91 patients had extended clinical outcomes. Post-operative assessment included functional scoring with the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and radiographic review. Survivorship curves were constructed using the life-table method, with 95% confidence intervals calculated using Rothman's equation. Separate endpoints were examined: revision for any reason and revision for confirmed loosening. RESULTS:The mean follow-up was 3.5 years. The pre-operative OKS improved from a mean of 21.2 to 38.9 (Mann-Whitney U Test, p?=?<?0.001). Twelve Patients required further operations including 9 revisions. No patients developed deep infection and no surviving implants were loose radiographically. Survivorship at 7 years with endpoints of re-operation, revision and aseptic loosening at surgery or radiographically was 88.4% (95% CI 79.6-93.7), 93.1% (95% CI 85.5-96.9) and 97.3% (95% CI 91.2-99.2) respectively. The presence of pre-operative mild contralateral tibiofemoral or any extent of patellofemoral joint degeneration was of no consequence. DISCUSSION:The indications for UKA are being expanded to include patients with greater deformity, more advanced disease in the patellofemoral joint and even certain features in the lateral compartment indicative of an anteromedial pattern of osteoarthritis (OA). However, much of the supporting literature remains available only from designer centres. This study represents a group of patients with what we believe to be wider indications, along with decisions to treat made on clinical grounds and radiographs alone. CONCLUSION:This study shows comparable clinical outcomes of UKA for extended indications from a high volume, high-usage non-designer unit.