Sabit-İnsörtlü ve Mobil-İnsörtlü Unikondiler Diz Artroplastisi: Benzer Komponent ve Mekanik Eksen Dizilimine Sahip Hastaların Karşılaştırması

Abstract

Amaç: Unikondiler diz artroplastisi (UDA), dizin bir kompartmanı ile sınırlı artritli hastalar için tedavi seçenekleri arasındadır. Sabit-insört (Sİ) ve mobil-insört (Mİ) eki mevcuttur. Bu çalışmada, Sİ-UDA ve Mİ-UDA ile ameliyat edilen hastaların fonksiyonel ve klinik sonuçlarının ve revizyon oranlarının karşılaştırılması amaçlandı. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Toplam olarak, 118 hastanın 131 dizine çimentolu UDA uygulandı ve ortalama takip süresi Sİ-UDA için 80,58±31,31 ay ve Mİ-UDA için 97,66±29,24 ay oldu. Klinik ve fonksiyonel değerlendirme, Knee Society Skor (KSS) ve Western Ontario and McMaster Universitesi Artrit Indeks (WOMAC) skoru ile son takip ziyaretinde yapıldı. Radyolojik ve fonksiyonel sonuçlar, komplikasyon ve revizyon oranlarını etkileyen faktörler üç ana başlık altında incelendi; i) cerrahla ilgili, ii) hastayla ilgili ve iii) bileşen hizalamayla ilgili faktörler. Bulgular: Gruplar arasında yaş, cinsiyet, vücut kitle endeksi ve yan açısından anlamlı bir fark yoktu. KSS skorlarına göre 9 (%6,87) diz kabul edilebilir sınırlar içinde, 62 (%47,32) diz iyi olarak ve 60 (%45,80) diz ise mükemmel olarak bulundu. Gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark bulunmadı (p=0,497). WOMAC skorları ile ilgili olarak, Mİ-UDA grubu anlamlı olarak daha düşük ağrı (p=0,049) ve sertlik (p=0,014), ancak benzer fonksiyonel skorlara (p=0,591) sahipti. Revizyon oranları açısından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark yoktu (p=0,931). Sonuç: Benzer klinik, fonksiyonel ve radyolojik sonuçlar ve düşük revizyon oranları bulundu. Ağrı ve eklem sertliği açısından gruplar arasında Mİ-UDA lehine anlamlı bir fark bulundu.

Keywords

• diz
• sabit insörtlü
• mobil insörtlü
• unikondiler

Fixed-Bearing versus Mobile-Bearing Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty: Comparison of Patients with Similar Component and Mechanical Axis Alignment

Abstract

Aim: Unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) is among the treatment options for patients with arthritis limited to one compartment of the knee. Fixed-bearing (FB) and mobile-bearing (MB) inserts are present. This study aimed to compare functional and clinical outcomes and revision rates of patients operated with FB-UKA and MB-UKA. Material and Methods: A total of 131 knees of 118 patients underwent cemented UKA, with a mean follow-up period of 80.58±31.31 months for FB-UKA and 97.66±29.24 months for MB-UKA. Clinical and functional evaluation was performed by the Knee Society Score (KSS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score, at the last follow-up visit. The factors affecting the radiological and functional results, complication, and revision rates were examined under three main titles; i) surgeon-related, ii) patient-related, and iii) component alignment-related factors. Results: There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of age, gender, body mass index, and side. Regarding the KSS scores, 9 (6.87%) knees were within acceptable limits, 62 (47.32%) knees were found to be good, and 60 (45.80%) knees were found to be excellent. No statistically significant difference was found between groups (p=0.497). Regarding the WOMAC scores, the MB-UKA group had significantly lower pain (p=0.049) and stiffness (p=0.014), but similar functional (p=0.591) scores. There was no statistically significant difference regarding revision rates (p=0.931). Conclusion: Similar clinical, functional, and radiological results and low revision rates were found. In terms of pain and joint stiffness, a significant difference was found between groups, in favor of MB-UKA.

Keywords

• knee
• fixed-bearing
• mobile-bearing
• unicondylar

References

1. Jeer PJ, Cossey AJ, Keene GC. Haemoglobin levels following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: influence of transfusion practice and surgical approach. Knee. 2005;12(5):358-61.
2. Sun PF, Jia YH. Mobile bearing UKA compared to fixed bearing TKA: a randomized prospective study. Knee. 2012;19(2):103-6.
3. Newman JH, Ackroyd CE, Shah NA. Unicompartmental or total knee replacement? Five-year results of a prospective, randomised trial of 102 osteoarthritic knees with unicompartmental arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80(5):862-5.
4. Laurencin CT, Zelicof SB, Scott RD, Ewald FC. Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in the same patient. A comparative study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991;(273):151-6.
5. Furnes O, Espehaug B, Lie SA, Vollset SE, Engesaeter LB, Havelin LI. Failure mechanisms after unicompartmental and tricompartmental primary knee replacement with cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(3):519-25.
6. Patil S, Colwell CW Jr, Ezzet KA, D'Lima DD. Can normal knee kinematics be restored with unicompartmental knee replacement? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(2):332-8.
7. Bonutti PM, Dethmers DA. Contemporary unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: fixed vs mobile bearing. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23(7 Suppl):24-7.
8. Emerson RH Jr, Hansborough T, Reitman RD, Rosenfeldt W, Higgins LL. Comparison of a mobile with a fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee implant. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;(404):62-70.

9. Smith TO, Hing CB, Davies L, Donell ST. Fixed versus mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement: a meta-analysis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2009;95(8):599-605.
10. Argenson JN, Komistek RD, Aubaniac JM, Dennis DA, Northcut EJ, Anderson DT, et al. In vivo determination of knee kinematics for subjects implanted with a unicompartmental arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17(8):1049-54.
11. McEwen HM, Barnett PI, Bell CJ, Farrar R, Auger DD, Stone MH, et al. The influence of design, materials and kinematics on the in vitro wear of total knee replacements. J Biomech. 2005;38(2):357-65.
12. McEwen HM, Fisher J, Goldsmith AA, Auger DD, Hardaker C, Stone MH. Wear of fixed bearing and rotating platform mobile bearing knees subjected to high levels of internal and external tibial rotation. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2001;12(10-12):1049-52.
13. Sathasivam S, Walker PS, Campbell PA, Rayner K. The effect of contact area on wear in relation to fixed bearing and mobile bearing knee replacements. J Biomed Mater Res. 2001;58(3):282-90.
14. Burton A, Williams S, Brockett CL, Fisher J. In vitro comparison of fixed- and mobile meniscal-bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasties: effect of design, kinematics, and condylar liftoff. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(8):1452-9.
15. Huang F, Wu D, Chang J, Zhang C, Qin K, Liao F, et al. A comparison of mobile- and fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasties in the treatment of medial knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 1,861 patients. J Knee Surg. 2021;34(4):434-43.
16. Ahlbäck S. Osteoarthrosis of the knee. A radiographic investigation. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh). 1968:Suppl 277:7-72.
17. Özden F, Tuğay N, Umut Tuğay B, Yalın Kılınç C. Psychometrical properties of the Turkish translation of the New Knee Society Scoring System. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2019;53(3):184-8.
18. 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.
19. Lim JBT, Pang HN, Tay KJD, Chia SL, Lo NN, Yeo SJ. Clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction following revision of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty are as good as a primary total knee arthroplasty. Knee. 2019;26(4):847-52.
20. Hamilton TW, Pandit HG, Lombardi AV, Adams JB, Oosthuizen CR, Clavé A, et al. Radiological Decision Aid to determine suitability for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: development and preliminary validation. Bone Joint J. 2016;98-B(10 Suppl B):3-10.
21. Murray DW, Liddle AD, Judge A, Pandit H. Bias and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2017;99-B(1):12-5.
22. Redish MH, Fennema P. Good results with minimally invasive unicompartmental knee resurfacing after 10-year follow-up. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2018;28(5):959-65.
23. Levine B, Rosenberg AG. The simple unicondylar knee: extramedullary technique. Clin Sports Med. 2014;33(1):77-85.
24. von Knoch F, Munzinger U. Modern unicondylar knee arthroplasty. Tips and tricks. Orthopade. 2014;43(5):414-24. German.
25. Saylık M, Şener N. Common errors in the practice according to Oxford Group radiological assessment criteria in minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Acıbadem Univ Sağlık Bilim Derg. 2021;12(2):220-7. Turkish.
26. Kennedy WR, White RP. Unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee. Postoperative alignment and its influence on overall results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;(221):278-85.
27. Cheng T, Chen D, Zhu C, Pan X, Mao X, Guo Y, et al. Fixed- versus mobile-bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasty: are failure modes different? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21(11):2433-41.
28. van der List JP, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD. Why do medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties fail today? J Arthroplasty. 2016;31(5):1016-21.
29. Barrett MC, Wilkinson FO, Blom AW, Whitehouse MR, Kunutsor SK. Incidence, temporal trends and potential risk factors for aseptic loosening following primary unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis of 96,294 knees. Knee. 2021;31:28-38.
30. Kuyucu E, Bülbül AM, Kara A, Say F, Erdil M. Which unicondylar prosthesis is better in the mid-term in obese patients: fixed or mobile? Acta Orthop Belg. 2018;84(3):257-61.
31. Liddle AD, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray DW. Effect of surgical caseload on revision rate following total and unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(1):1-8.