Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1740641
Historical Cohort of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty in a Chilean University Hospital
Article in several languages: español | English
Abstract
Purpose To describe the patient-reported functional outcome of a cohort of patients undergoing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) in a Chilean university hospital.
Methods A historical cohort study was designed. All patients who underwent fixed-bearing UKA between 2003 and 2019 were included. An independent evaluator contacted the patients in June 2020. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) was used to compare UKA procedures (medial or lateral), age (over or under 70 years), and follow up (longer or shorter than 5 years).
Results A total of 78 patients, corresponding to 94 UKAs, were included. The median age was 64 years (range: 43 to 85 years). There were 72 (76.6%) cases of medial UKA. One patient needed revision to total knee arthoplasty (TKA). A total of 60 patients (76.9%), corresponding to 72 UKAs, were successfully contacted by phone for the final follow-up. The median scores on the WOMAC domains were: pain – 1 (range: 0 to 12); stiffness –0 (range: 0 to 4); and physical function – 2 (range: 0 to 29). The median total score on the WOMAC was 4 (range: 0 to 44). Patients submitted to lateral UKA had better functional scores (p = 0.0432), and the total WOMAC score was similar among patients older or younger than 70 years of age (p = 0.3706).
Conclusions For patients with unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis, UKA is an effective and reproducible treatment. Age does not seem to affect the functional results, and UKA is an effective treatment in patients over 70 years old. These results should encourage knee surgeons to learn this technique and those responsible for public health policies to consider UKA for knee osteoarthritis.
Keywords
unicompartmental knee arthroplasty - unicompartmental knee replacement - osteoarthritis - knee - epidemiologyRoles and Contribution of Authorship
CI: conceptualization, validation, research, data curation, writing (review and editing), visualization, supervision, and project administration.
MB: methodology, formal analysis, research, and writing (original draft preparation, review, and editing).
DP: methodology, formal analysis, research, resources, data curation, writing (preparation of the original draft).
CB: research, resources, data curation, writing (review and editing), supervision.
MP: validation, formal analysis, research, resources, data curation, writing (preparation of the original draft).
AZ: formal analysis, research, writing (review and editing), supervision, project administration.
JH: validation, writing (review and editing), supervision, project administration.
JC: resources, writing (review and editing), supervision, project administration.
Ethics Approval
The present study was approved by the Ethichs in Research Committee at Hospital Clínico Universidad de Chile ethics, as stated in certificate number 26, issued on June 26, 2020.
Availability of Data
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study can be made available by the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Publication History
Received: 28 March 2021
Accepted: 06 August 2021
Article published online:
17 January 2022
© 2022. Sociedad Chilena de Ortopedia y Traumatologia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil
