Unicompartmental vs. total knee replacement in patients with failed high tibial osteotomy.
High tibial osteotomy
Knee replacement
Total knee replacement
Unicompartmental knee replacement
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:
Aug 2022
Aug 2022
Historique:
received:
06
04
2021
accepted:
26
07
2021
pubmed:
6
8
2021
medline:
22
7
2022
entrez:
5
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The influence of a previous high tibial osteotomy (HTO) on the outcome and survival of a knee arthroplasty is a debated issue. The purpose of this study is to compare subjective, radiographic, and functional outcomes of unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) and total knee replacement (TKR) after failed open wedge HTO. 26 post-HTO UKRs (group A) with an average follow-up of 7.8 years (range 2-13), and 33 post-HTO TKRs (group B) with an average follow-up of 11.2 years (range 4-16) operated between 2001 and 2017, were retrospectively reviewed. Assessment included Knee Society Score (KSS), University of California at Los Angeles Activity Score (UCLA), and Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Standard knee X-rays, and long-standing X-rays were performed pre-operatively and at follow-up to evaluate prosthesis survival, coronal alignment, and patellar height. Improvements regarding KSS, UCLA and WOMAC scores were noted at follow-up in both groups compared to pre-operatory status (p < 0.001). No statistically significant differences in clinical and functional postoperative scores were reported between groups (p = n.s.) at follow-up. Group B presented a more neutral mean mechanical axis of 0.5° compared to 2.7° in Group A (p < 0.001). Performing UKR after previous failed HTO is a safe and effective procedure which leads to clinical, radiological and functional outcomes comparable to TKR after HTO.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34351470
doi: 10.1007/s00402-021-04093-7
pii: 10.1007/s00402-021-04093-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2051-2056Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Sabzevari S, Ebrahimpour A, Roudi MK et al (2016) High tibial osteotomy: a systematic review and current concept. Arch Bone Jt Surg 4(3):204–212
pubmed: 27517063
pmcid: 4969364
Ferner F, Lutter C, Schubert I, Schenke M, Strecker W, Dickschas J (2021) Perioperative complications in osteotomies around the knee: a study in 858 cases. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg (Epub ahead of print)
Marullo M, Vitale JA, Stucovitz E, Romagnoli S (2019) Simultaneous bilateral unicompartmental knee replacement improves gait parameters in patients with bilateral knee osteoarthritis. Knee 26(6):1413–1420
doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2019.08.014
Innocenti B, Pianigiani S, Ramundo G, Thienpont E (2016) Biomechanical effects of different varus and valgus alignments in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 31(12):2685–2691
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.07.006
Ventura A, Legnani C, Terzaghi C, Macchi V, Borgo E (2020) Unicompartmental knee replacement combined to anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: midterm results. J Knee Surg 33(11):1152–1156
doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1692647
Erdem Y, Neyisci C, Yildiz C (2019) Mid-term clinical and radiological results of Oxford phase 3 medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Cureus 11(9):e5674
Ryu SM, Park JW, Na HD, Shon OJ (2018) High tibial osteotomy versus unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for medial compartment arthrosis with kissing lesions in relatively young patients. Knee Surg Relat Res 30(1):17–11
doi: 10.5792/ksrr.17.006
Petersen W, Metzlaff S (2016) Open wedge high tibial osteotomy (HTO) versus mobile bearing unicondylar medial joint replacement: five years results. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136(7):983–989
doi: 10.1007/s00402-016-2465-1
Belsey J, Yasen SK, Jobson S, Faulkner J, Wilson AJ (2021) Return to physical activity after high tibial osteotomy or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and pooling data analysis. Am J Sports Med 49(5):1372–1380
doi: 10.1177/0363546520948861
Van den Bempt M, Van Genechten W, Claes T et al (2016) How accurately does high tibial osteotomy correct the mechanical axis of an arthritic varus knee? A systematic review. Knee 23(6):925–935
doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2016.10.001
Kim MS, Koh IJ, Choi KY, Kim BS, In Y (2021) Changes in joint space width over time and risk factors for deterioration of joint space width after medial opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg (Epub ahead of print)
Vorlat P, Putzeys G, Cottenie D et al (2006) The Oxford unicompartmental knee prosthesis: an independent 10-year survival analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 14(1):40–45
doi: 10.1007/s00167-005-0621-1
Jamali AA, Scott RD, Rubash HE et al (2009) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: past, present, and future. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 38:17–23
Valenzuela GA, Jacobson NA, Buzas D et al (2013) Unicompartmental knee replacement after high tibial osteotomy. J Bone Jt Surg (Br) 95-B:1348–53
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.95B10.30541
Schlumberger M, Oremek D, Brielmaier M, Buntenbroich U, Schuster P, Fink B (2020) Prior high tibial osteotomy is not a contraindication for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc (Epub ahead of print)
Ferner F, Lutter C, Dickschas J et al (2019) Medial open wedge vs. lateral closed wedge high tibial osteotomy—Indications based on the findings of patellar height, leg length, torsional correction and clinical outcome in one hundred cases. Int Orthop 43(6):1379–1386
doi: 10.1007/s00264-018-4155-9
Papp M, Zsakai Z, Gomori A (2019) Comparison of total knee arthroplasty after combined high tibial osteotomy with a matched group of primary total knee arthroplasty. Eklem Hastalik Cerrahisi 30:79–84
doi: 10.5606/ehc.2019.66900
Chatain F, Richard A, Deschamps G et al (2004) Revision total knee arthroplasty after unicompartmental femorotibial prosthesis: 54 cases. Rev Chir Reparatrice Appar Mot 90:49–57
Wilson HA, Middleton R, Abram SGF et al (2019) Patient relevant outcomes of unicompartmental versus total knee replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 364:1352
Parente A, Legnani C, Bargagliotti M, Marullo M, Romagnoli S (2021) Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty after failed open-wedge high tibial osteotomy. J Arthroplasty 36(8):2746–2751
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2021.03.008
Paredes-Carnero X, Leyes M, Forriol F, Fernández-Cortiñas AB, Escobar J, Babé JG (2018) Long-term results of total knee arthroplasty after failed high tibial osteotomy. Int Orthop 42(9):2087–2096
doi: 10.1007/s00264-018-3837-7
Parvizi J, Hanssen AD, Spangehl MJ (2004) Total knee arthroplasty following proximal tibial osteotomy: risk factors for failure. J Bone Jt Surg Am 86(3):474–479
doi: 10.2106/00004623-200403000-00003
Pearse AJ, Hooper GJ, Rothwell AG, Frampton C (2012) Osteotomy and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty converted to total knee arthroplasty: data from the New Zealand joint registry. J Arthroplast 27:1827–1831
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2012.05.031
Sun X, Wang J, Su Z (2020) A meta-analysis of total knee arthroplasty following high tibial osteotomy versus primary total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 140(4):527–535
doi: 10.1007/s00402-020-03333-6
Kosashvili Y, Gross AE, Zywiel MG et al (2011) Total knee arthroplasty after failed distal femoral varus osteotomy using selectively stemmed posterior stabilized components. J Arthroplasty 26(5):738–743
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2010.06.008
Han JH, Yang JH, Bhandare NN et al (2016) Total knee arthroplasty after failed high tibial osteotomy: a systematic review of open versus closed wedge osteotomy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24(8):2567–2577
doi: 10.1007/s00167-015-3807-1