Minimally Invasive Inlay Prosthesis Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty for the Treatment of Unicompartmental Osteoarthritis: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study with Minimum 2-Year Outcomes and up to 14-Year Survival
1
EBM Analytics, Crows Nest, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
,
Milad Ebrahimi
1
EBM Analytics, Crows Nest, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
,
Clarice Field
2
Joint Orthopaedic Centre, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
,
Sami Farah
2
Joint Orthopaedic Centre, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
3
AM Orthopaedics, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
,
Dennis Kerr
2
Joint Orthopaedic Centre, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
,
Lawrence Kohan
2
Joint Orthopaedic Centre, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
› Author AffiliationsFunding L.K. reports grants from Smith & Nephew during the conduct of the study, personal fees from Medacta outside the submitted work, and funding from Smith & Nephew to support clinical registry activities by J.M. and C.F. for patient recruitment, follow-up, and data management.
There are limited medium-term outcome data available for the Repicci II device in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). The purpose of this study was to report the medium-term (minimum 2 years) patient-reported outcomes and long-term (up to 14 years) procedure survival in a consecutive series of patients undergoing an inlay prosthesis UKA (Repicci II) at an independent orthopaedic clinic. Patients presenting with medially localized unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis and meeting the criteria appropriate for UKA were recruited to a clinical patient registry at the time of presentation. A cemented unicompartmental prosthesis (Repicci II) was implanted using minimally invasive techniques with rapid postoperative mobilization. Patients were asked to complete patient-reported outcomes preoperatively and annually postoperatively. A procedure list was cross-matched with the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR), and an analysis of procedure survival was performed with comparison to the national data for UKA. Data from a cohort of 661 primary medial compartment UKA procedures performed in 551 patients over a 15-year period were extracted from the clinical patient registry. Significant improvements were maintained in general health, disease symptoms, pain, and function at an average follow-up of 9 years compared with preoperative data. Threshold analysis revealed that >65% of patients exceeded Patient Acceptable Symptom State at the latest follow-up, with >80% within or exceeding age-matched norms for general health. Cumulative revision rate was significantly lower than that reported for UKA in the AOANJRR at up to 13 years follow-up. This series represents a lower cumulative revision rate than previously reported, with >65% of patients reporting satisfactory functional outcomes at an average of 9 years from surgery. Surgical options for treating unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis could include UKA as a viable alternative; however, clear definitions of procedure success and its overall cost–benefit ratio in the context of ongoing management of knee osteoarthritis remain to be elucidated.
2
O'Donnell T,
Neil MJ.
The Repicci II® unicondylar knee arthroplasty: 9-year survivorship and function. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (11) 3094-3102
3
Kerr DR,
Kohan L.
Local infiltration analgesia: a technique for the control of acute postoperative pain following knee and hip surgery: a case study of 325 patients. Acta Orthop 2008; 79 (02) 174-183
11
de Steiger RN,
Hang JR,
Miller LN,
Graves SE,
Davidson DC.
Five-year results of the ASR XL Acetabular System and the ASR Hip Resurfacing System: an analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93 (24) 2287-2293
12
Vandenbroucke JP,
von Elm E,
Altman DG.
et al;
STROBE Initiative.
Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2007; 4 (10) e297
13
Guyatt GH,
Osoba D,
Wu AW,
Wyrwich KW,
Norman GR.
Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group.
Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc 2002; 77 (04) 371-383
14
Ware Jr JE,
Bayliss MS,
Rogers WH,
Kosinski M,
Tarlov AR.
Differences in 4-year health outcomes for elderly and poor, chronically ill patients treated in HMO and fee-for-service systems. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA 1996; 276 (13) 1039-1047
15
Quintana JM,
Escobar A,
Bilbao A,
Arostegui I,
Lafuente I,
Vidaurreta I.
Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after hip joint replacement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2005; 13 (12) 1076-1083
16
Selim AJ,
Rogers W,
Fleishman JA.
et al.
Updated U.S. population standard for the Veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey (VR-12). Qual Life Res 2009; 18 (01) 43-52
17
Keurentjes JC,
Van Tol FR,
Fiocco M.
et al.
Patient acceptable symptom states after total hip or knee replacement at mid-term follow-up: thresholds of the Oxford hip and knee scores. Bone Joint Res 2014; 3 (01) 7-13
18
Tubach F,
Ravaud P,
Baron G.
et al.
Evaluation of clinically relevant states in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the patient acceptable symptom state. Ann Rheum Dis 2005; 64 (01) 34-37
19
Briggs KK,
Steadman JR,
Hay CJ,
Hines SL.
Lysholm score and Tegner activity level in individuals with normal knees. Am J Sports Med 2009; 37 (05) 898-901
23
Zuiderbaan HA,
van der List JP,
Khamaisy S.
et al.
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty: which type of artificial joint do patients forget?. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25 (03) 681-686
25
Zuiderbaan HA,
van der List JP,
Chawla H,
Khamaisy S,
Thein R,
Pearle AD.
Predictors of subjective outcome after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (07) 1453-1458
26
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) 2617-2627
28
Hamilton TW,
Rizkalla JM,
Kontochristos L.
et al.
The interaction of caseload and usage in determining outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (10) 3228-3237.e2
29
Liddle AD,
Pandit H,
Judge A,
Murray DW.
Optimal usage of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study of 41,986 cases from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B (11) 1506-1511
30
Filbay SR,
Judge A,
Delmestri A,
Arden NK.
COASt Study Group.
Evaluating patients' expectations from a novel patient-centered perspective predicts knee arthroplasty outcome. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (07) 2146-2152.e4
31
Liebs TR,
Splietker F,
Hassenpflug J.
Is a revision a revision? An analysis of National Arthroplasty Registries' definitions of revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473 (11) 3421-3430
33
Burn E,
Liddle AD,
Hamilton TW.
et al.
Choosing between unicompartmental and total knee replacement: what can economic evaluations tell us? A systematic review. Pharmacoeconom Open 2017; 1 (04) 241-253
36
Rodrigues da Silva JM,
de Rezende MU,
Spada TC.
et al.
Educational program promoting regular physical exercise improves functional capacity and daily living physical activity in subjects with knee osteoarthritis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2017; 18 (01) 546
37
Moyer R,
Ikert K,
Long K,
Marsh J.
The value of preoperative exercise and education for patients undergoing total hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JBJS Rev 2017; 5 (12) e2
38
Wang L,
Lee M,
Zhang Z,
Moodie J,
Cheng D,
Martin J.
Does preoperative rehabilitation for patients planning to undergo joint replacement surgery improve outcomes? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open 2016; 6 (02) e009857