Vücut Kitle İndeksinin Unikondiler Diz Artroplastisinin Klinik Sonuçlarına Etkisi

Year 2018, Volume: 25 Issue: 1, 70 - 78, 30.03.2018

Abdullah Meriç Ünal , Sabriye Ercan , Ahsen Oğul Yurdagül Baygül Atalay Cem Çetin

https://doi.org/10.17343/sdutfd.391356

Abstract

Amaç:
Bu çalışmanın amacı, sabit ekleme sistemi ile
unikondiler diz artroplastisi yapılan hastaların vücut kütle indeksinin
postoperatif fonksiyonel diz verilerine olan etkilerini araştırmaktır.

Gereç
ve yöntemler: Vücut
kitle indeksi, Dünya Sağlık Örgütü tarafından önerilen yöntemle hesaplandı.
Hastalar beden kitle indeksi, vücut kitle indeksi 30 kg / m²'nin
altına ve üstüne çıkanlara göre iki gruba ayrıldı. Preoperatif ve postoperatif
eklem hareket açıklığı, Görme Analog Skalası, Diz Cemiyeti Skoru, Oxford Diz
Skoru, Western Ontario ve McMaster Üniversitesi osteoartrit indeksi skoru,
hastaların memnuniyetlerini ve dizlerinin fonksiyonel durumlarını saptamak için
kullanıldı.

Bulgular:  Vücut kitle indeksi 30 kg / m²'nin altında 44 hasta (Grup 1) ve vücut kütle indeksi 30 kg / m²'nin üzerinde 38 hasta (Grup 2) vardı. Gruplar arasında demografik veriler açısından, vücut ağırlıkları ve vücut kütle indeksleri dışında, ve izlem uzunlukları istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark yoktu (p˃0.05). Fonksiyonel diz skorlarının grup içi değerlendirmesinde her iki grupta postoperatif dönemde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir iyileşme tespit edildi (p: 0.001). Ancak, bu parametreler arasında gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark bulunamadı (p˃0.05). 

Sonuç: Vücut kütle indeksi obezite seviyesine ulaşırsa postoperatif
klinik sonuçları etkilemez.

Keywords

fonksiyonel durum, obezite, vücut kitle indeksi, hasta memnuniyeti, unikondiler diz artroplastisi

The Impact Of Body Mass Index On The Clinical Outcomes Of Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study is to investigate the effects
of the body mass index on the postoperative functional knee data of patients
who have undergone unicondylar knee arthroplasty with a fixed insert system.

Patients and methods: Body mass index was calculated with the method
proposed by the World Health Organization. The patients were divided into two
groups based on their body mass index, those with a body mass index of below
and above 30 kg/m². Preoperative and postoperative joint range of motion, Visual
Analogue Scale, Knee Society Scores, Oxford Knee Scores, Western Ontario and
McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index scores were used to identify the
patients’ satisfaction and the functional status of their knees.

Results: Among the 82 patients were 44 patients (Group 1) with a body mass index
below 30 kg/m² and 38 patients (Group 2) with a body mass index
above 30 kg/m². There was no statistically significant difference
between the groups in terms of their demographic data other than their body
weights and body mass indexes, and their follow-up lengths (p˃0.05). A
statistically significant improvement in the postoperative period was
identified in both groups in the intragroup evaluation of the functional knee
scores (p:0.001). However, no statistically significant difference was found in
these parameters between the groups (p˃0.05).

Conclusion: Body mass index reaching the level of obesity would
not affect postoperative clinical results. 

Keywords

functional status, obesity, body mass index, patients’ satisfaction, Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty

References

• 4. Matthews DJ, Hossain FS, Patel S, Haddad FS. A cohort study predicts beter functional outcomes and equivalent patient satisfaction following UKR compared with TKR. HSS J 2013;9(1):21-4.
• 7. Sikorski JM, Sikorska JZ. Relative risk of different operations for medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee. Orthopedics 2011;34(12):847-54.
• 5. Pearse AJ, Hooper GJ, Rothwell A, Frampton C. Survival and functional outcome after revision of a unicompartmental to a total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010;92(4):508-12.
• 6. Liddle AD, Judge A, Pandit H, Murray DW. Adverse outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee replacement in 101 330 matched patients: a study of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet 2014;384(9952):1437-45.
• 10. Willekens P, Victor J, Verbruggen D, Kerckhove MV, Van Der Straeten C. Outcome of patellofemoral arthroplasty, determinants for success. Acta Orthop Belg 2015;81(4):759-67.
• 8. Seyler TM, Mont MA, LaiLP, Xie J, Marker DR, Zywiel MG, Bonutti PM. Mid-term results and factors affecting outcome of a metal-backed unicompartmental knee design: a case series. J Orthop Surg Res 2009;4(1):39.
• 9. Lisowski LA, Van den Bekerom MP, Pilot P, Van Dijk CN, Lisowski AE. Oxford Phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: medium-term results of a minimally invasive surgical procedure. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2011;19(2):277-84.
• 11. Naal FD, Neuerburg C, Salzmann GM, Kriner M, von Knoch F, Preiss S, Drobny T, Munzinger U. Association of body mass index and clinical outcome 2 years after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2009;129(4):463-8.
• 12. Kerkhoffs GM, Servien E, Dunn W, Dahm D, Bramer JA, Haverkamp D. The influence of obesity on the complication rate and outcome of total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis and systematic literature review. J Bone Joint Surg. Am 2012;94(20):1839-44.
• 13. Murray DW, Pandit H, Weston-Simons JS, Jenkins C, Gill HS, Lombardi AV, Dodd CAF, Berend KR. Does body mass index affect the outcome of unicompartmental knee replacement?. Knee 2013;20(6):461-5.
• 16. van der List JP, Chawla H, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD. The role of preoperative patient characteristics on outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis critique. J Arthroplasty 2016;31(11):2617-27.
• 14. Tabor Jr OB, Tabor OB, Bernard M, Wan JY. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: long-term success in middle-age and obese patients. J Surg Orthop Adv 2005;14(2):59-63.
• 15. Berend KR, Lombardi Jr AV, Adams JB. Obesity, young age, patellofemoral disease, andanterior knee pain: identifying the unicondylar arthroplasty patient in the United States. Orthopedics 2007;30(5 Suppl):19-23.
• 19. Tüzün EH, Eker L, Aytar A, Daşkapan A, Bayramoğlu M. Acceptability, reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Turkish version of WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2005;13(1):28-33.
• 17. Dinjens RN, Senden R, Heyligers IC, Grimm B. Clinimetric quality of the new 2011 Knee Society score: high validity, low completion rate. Knee 2014;21(3):647-54.
• 18. Tuğay BU, Tuğay N, Güney H, Kinikli GI, Yuksel I, Atilla B. Oxford Knee Score: cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Turkish version in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2016;50(2):198-206.
• 1. Reijman M, Pols HAP, Bergink AP, Hazes JMW, Belo JN, Lievense AM, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA. Body mass index associated with onset and progression of osteoarthritis of the knee but not of the hip: the Rotterdam Study. Ann Rheum Dis 2007;66(2):158-62.
• 20. Cavaignac E, Lafontan V, Reina N, Pailhé R, Warmy M, Laffosse JM, Chiron P. Obesity has no advers eeffect on the outcome of unicompartmental knee replacement at a minimum follow-up of seven years. Bone Joint J 2013;95(8):1064-8.
• 21. Berend KR, Lombardi Jr AV, Mallory TH, Adams JB, Groseth KL. Early failure of minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is associated with obesity. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005;440:60-6.
• 2. Saccomanni B. Retracted Article: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a review of literature. Clin Rheumatol 2010;29(4):339-46.
• 3. Sebilo A, Casin C, Lebel B, Rouvillain JL, Chapuis S, Bonnevialle P. Clinical and technical factors influencing outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Retrospective multicentre study of 944 knees. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2013;99(4):227-34.