Influence of patient selection, component positioning and surgeon's caseload on the outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
Caseload
Component alignment
Patient satisfaction
Surgeon experience
Unicompartmental indication score
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty
Journal
Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery
ISSN: 1434-3916
Titre abrégé: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9011043
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2020
Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
31
10
2019
pubmed:
21
3
2020
medline:
10
10
2020
entrez:
21
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Implant malpositioning, low surgical caseload, and improper patient selection have been identified as essential factors, which could negatively affect the longevity of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). The aim of the current study was to evaluate the impact of the surgeon's caseload on patient selection, component positioning, as well as component survivorship and functional outcomes following a PSI-UKA. A total of 125 patient-specific instrumented (PSI) UKA were included. One hundred and two cases were treated by a high-volume surgeon (usage 40%) and 23 cases by a low-volume surgeon (< 10 cases/year, usage 34%). Preoperative UIS, as well as the postoperative clinical and radiologic outcome, were assessed retrospectively. Irrespective of the surgeon's UKA caseload, PSI allowed good accuracy in component positioning (p > 0.05). The high-volume surgeon had a more strict indication for UKA with 89% showing a UIS > 25 (considered a good indication) compared to 70% for the low-volume surgeon (p = 0.016). The low-volume surgeon achieved worse results regarding functional outcome (p < 0.05) and a tendency toward an increased risk for UKA failure (p = 0.11) compared to the high-volume surgeon. Due to potential selection errors, mostly connected to a low UKA-caseload, low-volume UKA surgeons might achieve worse outcomes. Very strict indications for UKA might be recommended in low-volume surgeons to achieve excellent clinical outcomes following a UKA.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Implant malpositioning, low surgical caseload, and improper patient selection have been identified as essential factors, which could negatively affect the longevity of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). The aim of the current study was to evaluate the impact of the surgeon's caseload on patient selection, component positioning, as well as component survivorship and functional outcomes following a PSI-UKA.
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 125 patient-specific instrumented (PSI) UKA were included. One hundred and two cases were treated by a high-volume surgeon (usage 40%) and 23 cases by a low-volume surgeon (< 10 cases/year, usage 34%). Preoperative UIS, as well as the postoperative clinical and radiologic outcome, were assessed retrospectively.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Irrespective of the surgeon's UKA caseload, PSI allowed good accuracy in component positioning (p > 0.05). The high-volume surgeon had a more strict indication for UKA with 89% showing a UIS > 25 (considered a good indication) compared to 70% for the low-volume surgeon (p = 0.016). The low-volume surgeon achieved worse results regarding functional outcome (p < 0.05) and a tendency toward an increased risk for UKA failure (p = 0.11) compared to the high-volume surgeon.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Due to potential selection errors, mostly connected to a low UKA-caseload, low-volume UKA surgeons might achieve worse outcomes. Very strict indications for UKA might be recommended in low-volume surgeons to achieve excellent clinical outcomes following a UKA.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32193676
doi: 10.1007/s00402-020-03413-7
pii: 10.1007/s00402-020-03413-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
807-813Références
Ackroyd CE (2003) Medial compartment arthroplasty of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br 85(7):937–942
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.85B7.14650
Patil S, Colwell CW Jr, Ezzet KA, D'Lima DD (2005) Can normal knee kinematics be restored with unicompartmental knee replacement? J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(2):332–338
doi: 10.2106/00004623-200502000-00015
Hauer G, Sadoghi P, Bernhardt GA, Wolf M, Ruckenstuhl P, Fink A et al (2020) Greater activity, better range of motion and higher quality of life following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a comparative case-control study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 140(2):231–237
doi: 10.1007/s00402-019-03296-3
Morris MJ, Molli RG, Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr (2013) Mortality and perioperative complications after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee 20(3):218–220
doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2012.10.019
Berger RA, Meneghini RM, Jacobs JJ, Sheinkop MB, Della Valle CJ, Rosenberg AG et al (2005) Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum of ten years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(5):999–1006
doi: 10.2106/00004623-200505000-00010
Newman J, Pydisetty RV, Ackroyd C (2009) Unicompartmental or total knee replacement: the 15-year results of a prospective randomised controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91(1):52–57
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.91B1.20899
Hernigou P, Deschamps G (2004) Posterior slope of the tibial implant and the outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86(3):506–511
doi: 10.2106/00004623-200403000-00007
Hernigou P, Deschamps G (2004) Alignment influences wear in the knee after medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 423:161–165
doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000128285.90459.12
Epinette JA, Brunschweiler B, Mertl P, Mole D, Cazenave A (2012) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty modes of failure: wear is not the main reason for failure: a multicentre study of 418 failed knees. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res OTSR 98(6 Suppl):S124–S130
doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2012.07.002
Diezi C, Wirth S, Meyer DC, Koch PP (2010) Effect of femoral to tibial varus mismatch on the contact area of unicondylar knee prostheses. Knee 17(5):350–355
doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2009.10.004
Liddle AD, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray DW (2016) Effect of surgical caseload on revision rate following total and unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 98(1):1–8
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.N.00487
Vasso M, Antoniadis A, Helmy N (2018) Update on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: current indications and failure modes. EFORT Open Rev 3(8):442–448
doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.170060
Flury A, Hasler J, Dimitriou D, Antoniadis A, Finsterwald M, Helmy N (2019) Midterm clinical and radiographic outcomes of 115 consecutive patient-specific unicompartmental knee arthroplasties. Knee 26(4):889–896
doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2019.05.006
Dao Trong ML, Diezi C, Goerres G, Helmy N (2015) Improved positioning of the tibial component in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with patient-specific cutting blocks. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23(7):1993–1998
doi: 10.1007/s00167-014-2839-2
Jones GG, Logishetty K, Clarke S, Collins R, Jaere M, Harris S et al (2018) Do patient-specific instruments (PSI) for UKA allow non-expert surgeons to achieve the same saw cut accuracy as expert surgeons? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138(11):1601–1608
doi: 10.1007/s00402-018-3031-9
Liddle AD, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray DW (2015) Optimal usage of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study of 41,986 cases from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Bone Joint J 97-b(11):1506–1511
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.97B11.35551
Antoniadis A, Dimitriou D, Canciani JP, Helmy N (2019) A novel preoperative scoring system for the indication of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, as predictor of clinical outcome and satisfaction. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 139(1):113–120
doi: 10.1007/s00402-018-3069-8
Hamilton TW, Rizkalla JM, Kontochristos L, Marks BE, Mellon SJ, Dodd CAF et al (2017) The interaction of caseload and usage in determining outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplast 32(10):3228–37.e2
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.04.063
Vasso M, Del Regno C, D'Amelio A, Viggiano D, Corona K, Schiavone PA (2015) Minor varus alignment provides better results than neutral alignment in medial UKA. Knee 22(2):117–121
doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2014.12.004
Deschamps G, Chol C (2011) Fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty patients’ selection and operative technique. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 97(6):648–661
doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2011.08.003
Matziolis G, Mueller T, Layher F, Wagner A (2018) The femoral component alignment resulting from spacer block technique is not worse than after intramedullary guided technique in medial unicompartimental knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138(6):865–870
doi: 10.1007/s00402-018-2911-3
Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS (1957) Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis 16(4):494–502
doi: 10.1136/ard.16.4.494
Altman RD, Fries JF, Bloch DA, Carstens J, Cooke TD, Genant H et al (1987) Radiographic assessment of progression in osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum 30(11):1214–1225
doi: 10.1002/art.1780301103
Kozinn SC, Scott R (1989) Unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 71(1):145–150
doi: 10.2106/00004623-198971010-00023
Dejour H, Bonnin M (1994) Tibial translation after anterior cruciate ligament rupture two radiological tests compared. J Bone Joint Surg Br 76(5):745–749
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.76B5.8083263
Kerens B, Leenders AM, Schotanus MGM (2018) Patient-specific instrumentation in Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is reliable and accurate except for the tibial rotation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26(6):1823–1830
doi: 10.1007/s00167-017-4826-x
Campi S, Pandit HG, Dodd CAF, Murray DW (2017) Cementless fixation in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25(3):736–745
doi: 10.1007/s00167-016-4244-5
van der List JP, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD (2016) Why do medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties fail today? J Arthroplast 31(5):1016–1021
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.11.030
Bell SW, Stoddard J, Bennett C, London NJ (2014) Accuracy and early outcomes in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty performed using patient specific instrumentation. Knee 21(Suppl 1):S33–S36
doi: 10.1016/S0968-0160(14)50007-5
Pearle AD, van der List JP, Lee L, Coon TM, Borus TA, Roche MW (2017) Survivorship and patient satisfaction of robotic-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum two-year follow-up. Knee 24(2):419–428
doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2016.12.001
Alvand A, Khan T, Jenkins C, Rees JL, Jackson WF, Dodd CAF et al (2018) The impact of patient-specific instrumentation on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomised controlled study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26(6):1662–1670
doi: 10.1007/s00167-017-4677-5
Antoniadis A, Camenzind RS, Schar MO, Bergadano D, Helmy N (2019) Accuracy of tibial cuts with patient-specific instrumentation is not influenced by the surgeon’s level of experience. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27(5):1535–1543
doi: 10.1007/s00167-018-4992-5