Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2019; 32(03): 205-210
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1635113
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Femoral Component Sizing in Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacement: Existing Guidelines Do Not Work for Indian Patients

Rajesh Malhotra
1   Department of Orthopaedics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
,
Sahil Gaba
1   Department of Orthopaedics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
,
Naman Wahal
1   Department of Orthopaedics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
,
Vijay Kumar
1   Department of Orthopaedics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
,
Deep N. Srivastava
2   Department of Radiodiagnosis, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
,
Hemant Pandit
3   Department of Orthopaedics, University of Leeds, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
Further Information

Publication History

17 June 2017

28 January 2018

Publication Date:
28 February 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement (OUKR) has shown excellent long-term clinical outcomes as well as implant survival when used for correct indications with optimal surgical technique. Anteromedial osteoarthritis is highly prevalent in Indian patients, and OUKR is the ideal treatment option in such cases. Uncertainty prevails about the best method to determine femoral component size in OUKR. Preoperative templating has been shown to be inaccurate, while height- and gender-based guidelines based on European population might not apply to the Indian patients. Microplasty instrumentation introduced in 2012 introduced the sizing spoon, which has the dual function of femoral component sizing and determining the level of tibia cut. We aimed to check the accuracy of sizing spoon and also to determine whether the present guidelines are appropriate for use in the Indian patients. A total of 130 consecutive Oxford mobile bearing medial cemented UKR performed using the Microplasty instrumentation were included. The ideal femoral component size for each knee was recorded by looking for overhang and underhang in post-operative lateral knee radiograph. The accuracy of previous guidelines was determined by applying them to our study population. Previously published guidelines (which were based on Western population) proved to be accurate in only 37% of cases. Hence, based on the demographics of our study population, we formulated modified height- and gender-based guidelines, which would better suit the Indian population. Accuracy of modified guidelines was estimated to be 74%. The overall accuracy of sizing spoon (75%), when used as an intraoperative guide, was similar to that of modified guidelines. Existing guidelines for femoral component sizing do not work in Indian patients. Modified guidelines and use of intraoperative spoon should be used to choose the optimal implant size while performing OUKR in Indian patients.

Keywords

knee replacement - unicompartmental knee replacement - prosthesis fitting - osteoarthritis - body height
 

  • References

  • 1 Price AJ, Svard U. A second decade lifetable survival analysis of the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469 (01) 174-179
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Lisowski LA, Meijer LI, van den Bekerom MP, Pilot P, Lisowski AE. Ten-to 15-year results of the Oxford Phase III mobile unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective study from a non-designer group. Bone Joint J 2016; 98 (10, Supple B): 41-47
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Emerson RH, Alnachoukati O, Barrington J, Ennin K. The results of Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the United States: a mean ten-year survival analysis. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B (10, Supple B): 34-40
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Pandit H, Jenkins C, Barker K, Dodd CA, Murray DW. The Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement using a minimally-invasive approach. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006; 88 (01) 54-60
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Matharu G, Robb C, Baloch K, Pynsent P. The Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement: survival and the affect of age and gender. Knee 2012; 19 (06) 913-917
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Kort NP, van Raay JJ, Cheung J, Jolink C, Deutman R. Analysis of Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement using the minimally invasive technique in patients aged 60 and above: an independent prospective series. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2007; 15 (11) 1331-1334
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Hernigou P, Deschamps G. Alignment influences wear in the knee after medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; (423) 161-165
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Willis-Owen CA, Brust K, Alsop H, Miraldo M, Cobb JP. Unicondylar knee arthroplasty in the UK National Health Service: an analysis of candidacy, outcome and cost efficacy. Knee 2009; 16 (06) 473-478
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Goodfellow JW, O'Connor JJ, Pandit H, Dodd CA, Murray D. Unicompartmental Arthroplasty with the Oxford Knee. 2nd ed. Goodfellow Publishers Limited, Oxford University Press; 2015
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 10 Price AJ, O'Connor JJ, Murray DW, Dodd CA, Goodfellow JW. A history of Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2007; 30 (5, Suppl): 7-10
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Koh IJ, Kim JH, Jang SW, Kim MS, Kim C, In Y. Are the Oxford(®) medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty new instruments reducing the bearing dislocation risk while improving components relationships? A case control study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2016; 102 (02) 183-187
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Tu Y, Xue H, Ma T. , et al. Superior femoral component alignment can be achieved with Oxford microplasty instrumentation after minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25 (03) 729-735
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Fawzy E, Pandit H, Jenkins C, Dodd CA, Murray DW. Determination of femoral component size in unicompartmental knee replacement. Knee 2008; 15 (05) 403-406
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Kim TK, Phillips M, Bhandari M, Watson J, Malhotra R. What differences in morphologic features of the knee exist among patients of various races? A systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2017; 475 (01) 170-182
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Mahfouz M, Abdel Fatah EE, Bowers LS, Scuderi G. Three-dimensional morphology of the knee reveals ethnic differences. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470 (01) 172-185
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Vaidya SV, Ranawat CS, Aroojis A, Laud NS. Anthropometric measurements to design total knee prostheses for the Indian population. J Arthroplasty 2000; 15 (01) 79-85
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Bothra V, Lemon G, Lang D, Smith DM, Ali AM. Reliability of templating in estimating the size of uni-condylar knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2003; 18 (06) 780-783
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Kasis AG, Pacheco RJ, Hekal W, Farhan MJ, Smith DM, Ali AM. The precision and accuracy of templating the size of unicondylar knee arthroplasty. Knee 2004; 11 (05) 395-398
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Tu Y, Xue H, Cai M, Ma T, Liu X, Xia Z. Improvement of femoral component size prediction using a C-arm intensifier guide and our established algorithm in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a report from a Chinese population. Knee 2014; 21 (02) 435-438
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Kim GH, Park BY, Bae TY, Song KY, In Y. Implant Overhang after Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Oxford Prosthesis versus Miller-Galante II Prosthesis. Knee Surg Relat Res 2014; 26 (02) 82-87
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar