Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2023; 36(10): 1020-1025
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1748822
Original Article

Supine Knee Positioning Does Not Interfere with Mobile-Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Performance

John C. Bonano 
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford Hospital and Clinics, Redwood City, California
,
Andrew A. Barrett
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford Hospital and Clinics, Redwood City, California
,
Vinay K. Aggarwal 
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford Hospital and Clinics, Redwood City, California
,
Foster Chen
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford Hospital and Clinics, Redwood City, California
,
Joseph Schirmers
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California
,
Andrea K. Finlay
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford Hospital and Clinics, Redwood City, California
,
Prerna Arora
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford Hospital and Clinics, Redwood City, California
,
Derek F. Amanatullah 
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford Hospital and Clinics, Redwood City, California
› Author Affiliations Ethics, Funding, and Declaration of Interest As this is a noninterventional cadaveric laboratory-based study, institutional review board and ethical approval were not necessary. Cadaveric specimens used in this study were purchased by Zimmer-Biomet from a licensed third-party organization. One of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: D.F.A has received a grant for this study and consulting fees from Zimmer-Biomet.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The Food and Drug Administration has only approved mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (MB-UKA) to be performed with a hanging leg holder. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of a supine knee position on MB-UKA performance.

In total, 16 cadavers were randomized so that either the right or left knee was placed in the flexed or supine positions. One board-certified orthopaedic surgeon and three adult reconstruction fellows that attended the required Oxford partial knee instructional course performed four operations in each position. The primary outcome was final knee balance. Secondary outcomes included procedure duration, timing of individual surgical steps, implant sizes, range of motion, implant alignment, and fracture. A Students t-test was used to examine differences between positions with significance set at p < 0.05. Secondary analyses using two one-sided tests were conducted to explore equivalence between the two positions.

There was no significant difference in mean final balance between supine (1.7 mm ± standard deviation [SD] = 1.5 mm) and flexed (1.3 ± 1.3 mm) positions (p = 0.390). There were also no significant differences between positions for procedure time (p = 0.497), tibia coronal alignment (p = 0.614), tibial slope (p = 0.194), femoral component sagittal alignment (p = 0.091), and fractures (n = 0). Exploratory equivalence analyses indicated that the positions were equivalent for final balance (p = 0.002).

MB-UKA performed in the supine position is not significantly different from the flexed position in terms of ligament balance, overall procedure time, and radiographic appearance. These initial safety data warrant further clinical investigations and support the expansion of the surgical technique to include performing MB-UKAs in the supine position.

Keywords

unicompartmental knee arthroplasty - TKA - UKA - mobile bearing - dislocation

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 17 September 2021

Accepted: 18 March 2022

Article published online:
10 June 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Parratte S, Pauly V, Aubaniac JM, Argenson JNA. No long-term difference between fixed and mobile medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470 (01) 61-68
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bae JH, Kim JG, Lee SY, Lim HC, In Y. MUKA Study group. Epidemiology of bearing dislocations after mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: multicenter analysis of 67 bearing dislocations. J Arthroplasty 2020; 35 (01) 265-271
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Mohammad HR, Matharu GS, Judge A, Murray DW. New surgical instrumentation reduces the revision rate of unicompartmental knee replacement: a propensity score matched comparison of 15,906 knees from the National Joint Registry. Knee 2020; 27 (03) 993-1002
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Biomet. Oxford® Partial Knee Microplasty Instrumentation, Surgical Technique. 2020 . Accessed on 01 September 2021. Available at: https://www.zimmerbiomet.com/content/dam/zimmer-biomet/medical-professionals/000-surgical-techniques/knee/oxford-partial-knee-microplasty-instrumentation-surgical-technique.pdf.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Burkhart FL, Daly JW. Sciatic and peroneal nerve injury: a complication of vaginal operations. Obstet Gynecol 1966; 28 (01) 99-102
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Warner MA, Warner DO, Harper CM, Schroeder DR, Maxson PM. Lower extremity neuropathies associated with lithotomy positions. Anesthesiology 2000; 93 (04) 938-942
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Mizuno J, Takahashi T. Factors that increase external pressure to the fibular head region, but not medial region, during use of a knee-crutch/leg-holder system in the lithotomy position. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2015; 11: 255-261
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Winfree CJ, Kline DG. Intraoperative positioning nerve injuries. Surg Neurol 2005; 63 (01) 5-18 , discussion 18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Harris AH, Fernandes-Taylor S, Giori N. “Not statistically different” does not necessarily mean “the same”: the important but underappreciated distinction between difference and equivalence studies. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94 (05) e29
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Berend K, Hurst J, Morris M, Adams J, Lombardi A. New instrumentation reduces operative time in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using the oxford mobile bearing design. Reconstr Rev 2015;5(04): Doi: doi.org/10.15438/rr.5.4.126
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Walker T, Heinemann P, Bruckner T, Streit MR, Kinkel S, Gotterbarm T. The influence of different sets of surgical instrumentation in Oxford UKA on bearing size and component position. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2017; 137 (07) 895-902
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Stratford PW, Kennedy DM, Robarts SF. Modelling knee range of motion post arthroplasty: clinical applications. Physiother Can 2010; 62 (04) 378-387
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Aunan E, Kibsgård TJ, Diep LM, Röhrl SM. Intraoperative ligament laxity influences functional outcome 1 year after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2015; 23 (06) 1684-1692
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Lakens D. Equivalence tests: a practical primer for t tests, correlations, and meta-analyses. Soc Psychol Personal Sci 2017; 8 (04) 355-362
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; Vienna, Austria: 2018. . Accessed on 01 September 2021. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/
    Google Scholar
  • 16 RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio, Inc.; Boston, MA.: 2015. . Accessed on 01 September 2021. Available at: http://www.rstudio.com/
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Revelle MW. psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research (R package). October 2017. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. Version = 1.9.12 Accessed on 01 September 2021. Available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 2015; 67 (01) 1-48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Price AJ, Short A, Kellett C. et al. Ten-year in vivo wear measurement of a fully congruent mobile bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005; 87 (11) 1493-1497
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Price AJ, Waite JC, Svard U. Long-term clinical results of the medial Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005; (435) 171-180
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lunebourg A, Parratte S, Galland A, Lecuire F, Ollivier M, Argenson JN. Is isolated insert exchange a valuable choice for polyethylene wear in metal-backed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty?. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2016; 24 (10) 3280-3286
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kendrick BJ, Longino D, Pandit H. et al. Polyethylene wear in Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement: a retrieval study of 47 bearings. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010; 92 (03) 367-373
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Psychoyios V, Crawford RW, O'Connor JJ, Murray DW. Wear of congruent meniscal bearings in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a retrieval study of 16 specimens. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998; 80 (06) 976-982
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Argenson JN, O'Connor JJ. Polyethylene wear in meniscal knee replacement. A one to nine-year retrieval analysis of the Oxford knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1992; 74 (02) 228-232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar