Previous Article in Journal
Impact of Patient- and Surgeon-Related Factors on Weight Loss after Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy—A Single-Center Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Medicina
Volume 60
Issue 9
10.3390/medicina60091451
medicina-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

All-Polyethylene Tibial Component in Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Offers Excellent Survivorship and Clinical Outcomes at Short-Term Follow-Up: A Multicenter Retrospective Clinical Study

by
Tommaso Bonanzinga
1,2,
Federico Maria Adravanti
3,
Umberto Vitale
1,2,
Giuseppe Anzillotti
1,2,*,
Francesco Iacono
1,2 and
Maurilio Marcacci
1,2
1
IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, Rozzano, 20089 Milan, Italy
2
Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, Pieve Emanuele, 20072 Milan, Italy
3
II Clinica Ortopedica e Traumatologica, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, 40136 Bologna, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Medicina 2024, 60(9), 1451; https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina60091451
Submission received: 6 August 2024 / Revised: 28 August 2024 / Accepted: 3 September 2024 / Published: 4 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advancements in Total Knee Arthroplasty)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background and Objectives: The ten-year survivorship of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is up to 96%, varying from implants and hospitals; however, most of registry studies do not distinguish between metal-back (MB) tibial implants and all-polyethylene (AP) tibial implants. The aim of the present retrospective clinical study was to analyze the clinical outcomes and survivorship of medial and lateral UKA with a newly designed all-polyethylene tibial plateau at short-term follow-up. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected consecutive patients who underwent medial or lateral UKA with AP tibial plateau was conducted, with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Primary outcomes were clinical score (VAS, OKS, and KOOS) variations from baseline up to the latest follow-up. Secondary outcomes were Likert scale variations from baseline to the follow-up, evaluation of the influence of demographic factors (age and BMI) at the time of surgery on the clinical outcomes, and evaluation of revision rate up to the last follow-up. Results: The final study population included 99 knees. The mean VAS score for the medial group significantly decreased from 7.61 ± 1.65 (pre-intervention) to 2.74 ± 2.26 (post-intervention). Similar improvements were registered for the OKS as well, for both the medial group (from 22.5 ± 12.6 to 36.6 ± 10.6, with a delta of 14.11 (10.05 to 18.17)) and the lateral group (from 22.6 ± 12.6 to 36.9 ± 11.8, with a delta of 14.24 (8.65 to 19.83)). Moreover, all the KOOS subscales reported an amelioration, both in medial UKA and lateral UKA. Furthermore, a logistic regression of delta VAS was performed in relation to the other clinical questionnaires and the demographic factors. For both medial and lateral UKAs, no statistically significant correlation was found between the VAS scale regression and the demographic factors. The survival rate free from any revision of the cohort at the latest follow-up was 96.32%. Conclusions: All-polyethylene tibial component in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty demonstrates significant improvements in clinical scores and a low failure rate at short-term follow-up.

1. Introduction

Osteoarthritis (OA) is considered a high-incidence disease responsible for the highest rate of disability among older adults and comprises up to 2.5 percent of the gross domestic products [1,2,3]. Although the last stages of the disease may involve the entire joint [4], it is not uncommon to observe the involvement of only one joint compartment. In fact, it is estimated that up to 50% of the population suffers from a unicompartmental disease, with the medial tibiofemoral compartment (27%) most affected, followed by the patellofemoral (18%) and, lastly, the lateral tibiofemoral (5%) [5]. It is still debated which is the most suitable option for patients with end-stage unicompartmental OA, but unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has established itself over the years as a valid option in both young and active and older patients [6]. The ten-year survivorship of UKA is confirmed to be up to 96%, varying from implants and hospitals; however, most of the registry studies do not distinguish between metal-back (MB) tibial implants and all-polyethylene (AP) tibial implants [7,8]. While the AP was employed previously [9,10,11,12], in recent years, some surgeons have opted to discontinue its use in preference of the MB, considering it safer in terms of early risk of failure [13,14,15] and better in terms of clinical outcomes [16,17], especially in obese patients [18]. Sessa et al. reported that AP implants had greater survivorship but inferior outcomes compared to MB implants in 143 patients at long-term follow-up [19]. Other authors reported no differences between the AP and MB implants in terms of functional outcomes, quality of life, and survivorship [20,21], while Lustig et al. found excellent long-term results in a series of 172 AP tibial implant with minimal bone cuts [22], and Murray et al. found a survivorship of 68% at 25 years in a cohort of lateral UKA [23]. However, the overall evidence is limited by the paucity of well-conducted clinical trials describing clinical outcomes and survivorship of AP UKA implants [24]. Moreover, the advent of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) in the last decade has pushed clinicians again towards the use of the AP tibial implant, with potential benefits given by the absence of a locking mechanism failure, the minimal backside wear, the reduction in implant cost, and a potentially more symmetrical load distribution compared to MB designs [25]. Indeed, a recent meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MB versus AP implants for unilateral knee OA showed how the clinical scores and survival of the implants was comparable between the two groups; however, the AP group outperformed the MB group in the radiostereometric analysis [26]. Hence, the aim of the present retrospective clinical study was to analyze the clinical outcomes and survivorship of medial and lateral UKA with a newly designed all-polyethylene tibial plateau (SLED®, Waldemar Link GmbH & Co. KG, Hamburg, Germany) at the short/mid-term follow-up.

2. Materials and Methods

This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected consecutive patients who underwent a medial or lateral UKA with AP tibial plateau (SLED®, Waldemar Link GmbH & Co. KG, Hamburg, Germany). The study was performed in two separate orthopedic centers both specialized in knee arthroplasty and sports medicine (Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Italy and Humanitas San Pio X, Milan, Italy). Written informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. The protocol was approved by the Ethical Committees/Internal Review Boards of each site and the study was conducted in agreement with either the Declaration of Helsinki (Tokyo, Venice, Hong Kong, and Somerset West amendments) (study n° 3156).
From March 2017 to December 2021, UKA surgeries were performed by a single expert knee surgeon (MM). Data were collected from clinical records and stored in a limited access area with daily backup by one experienced knee surgeon (TB) and one researcher (FMA).
The inclusion criteria were as follows: aged 20–90 years, primary knee OA in medial or lateral compartment treated with a UKA with an AP tibial plateau, intact anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), and a minimum follow-up of 1 year after surgery.
The exclusion criteria were as follows: presence of contralateral compartment OA, presence of anterior OA, concomitant surgeries on the index knee, previous history of high tibial osteotomy on the affected knee, previous surgery for traumatic events in the index knee, presence of inflammatory arthropathies (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis), any known history of intra-articular or osseous infection of the index knee.
The surgical procedure is performed according to a minimally invasive technique, a quadriceps-sparing technique for the medial UKA, and a minimally invasive lateral approach for the lateral UKA, with a capsular approach with respect to the vastus lateralis. A tourniquet was used in all cases. The limb is placed in a thigh support with 45° flexion of the hip, and the leg is hanging down. It should be possible to flex the knee at least 120°. When using a medial incision, a lateral thigh support is needed. The surgery is performed with the surgeon in front of the flexed knee. The other leg is placed in a leg support, leaving plenty of space for the surgeon and the assistant. The skin and capsular incision were performed with knee flexed at 90° both in case of medial and lateral compartment.
In the postoperative settings, all patients were given conventional analgesic therapy such as Tramadol and Paracetamol. All the patients were given anti-thrombosis prophylaxis with Enoxaparine for at least 4 weeks, depending on comorbidity and anticoagulation status of the patient.
Patients began active knee movements (flexion and extension) and passive knee motion with motorized equipment (Kinetec) in the early morning after surgery. Full weight-bearing exercise carried out by ward physiotherapist and with the aid of two elbow crutches was started on the first postoperative day. Full extension and 90° flexion were the goal at discharge. The patients were monitored to ensure adequate wound healing within the first 2 weeks, and the stitches were removed 2 weeks after the surgery.

2.1. Outcomes

Primary outcome is as follows: clinical score variations from baseline up to latest follow-up (Pain Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) [27], Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) [28], and the Oxford Knee Score (OKS)) [29].
Secondary outcomes are as follows: Likert scale [30] administered at the latest follow-up; evaluation of the influence of demographic factors (age and body mass index (BMI)) at the time of surgery on the clinical outcomes; evaluation of revision rate up to the last follow-up.
Failure was defined as the need for any further surgical treatment on the index knee.

2.2. Data Analysis

Data were described as number and percentage, if categorical, or mean and standard deviation, if continuous and approximately Gaussian, or median and range, otherwise. Deltas between the pre- and post-procedure values were also described with their 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Associations of covariates with delta VAS were explored with linear regression analysis. OKS and KOOS scales were also categorized for a simplification of interpretation. Differences among categories of age and BMI were explored with the Kruskal–Wallis test. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All analyses were performed with STATA (15, StataCorpLLC, College Station, TX, USA).

3. Results

A total of 136 UKA surgeries were performed during the study period. Up to 37 patients could not complete the clinical questionnaires administered at follow-up due to personal reasons, so they were excluded from the analysis of the clinical outcomes, although they were included in the analysis of the revision rate. Hence, the final study population included 99 knees, with 90 affected by primary OA and 9 by secondary OA.
The mean age at surgery of the patients included was 62.6 ± 12.2 years. Of these patients, 51 (51.2%) were women and 48 were men (48.8%). The mean body mass index (BMI) was 25.7 ± 3.9 kg/m2. The minimum follow-up from surgery was 12 months, with a mean of 34.5 ± 14.0 months. The average latest follow-up was 65 months for medial UKA and 61 months for lateral UKA. No intra- or postoperative complications were reported in this series.
Among the finally included patients, 25 UKA (25.25%) were lateral, while 74 (74.75%) were medial. Demographic characteristics listed in Table 1.
The mean VAS score for the medial group significantly decreased from 7.61 ± 1.65 (pre-intervention) to 2.74 ± 2.26 (post-intervention), indicating a substantial reduction in pain. The delta (95% confidence interval [CI]) was calculated as −4.86 (−5.52 to −4.21). Similarly, the lateral group showed a significant decrease in the VAS score from 7.24 ± 1.98 to 2.52 ± 2.43, with a delta of −4.72 (−5.71 to −3.73). Similar improvements were registered for the OKS as well, for both the medial group (from 22.5 ± 12.6 to 36.6 ± 10.6, with a delta of 14.11 (10.05 to 18.17)) and the lateral group (from 22.6 ± 12.6 to 36.9 ± 11.8, with a delta of 14.24 (8.65 to 19.83)). Moreover, all the KOOS subscales reported an amelioration, both in the medial UKA and lateral UKA (Table 2).
However, when comparing the delta variation of the clinical scores examined, only KOOS pain and KOOS activity of daily living reported significant improvements in the medial cases compared to the lateral ones (p = 0.01 and p = 0.03, respectively).
Furthermore, a logistic regression of delta VAS was performed in relation to the other clinical questionnaires and the demographic factors in order to understand if a consistent and statistically significant pain was related to the other clinical scales or demographic factors such as age, BMI, and sex. For the medial UKA, statistically significant correlations were found with the Likert scale (p < 0.001), OKS (p = 0.013), KOOS symptoms (p = 0.001), KOOS pain (p < 0.001), and KOOS daily (p = 0.003), highlighting the importance of obtaining a significant pain reduction to also improve the other aspects of the patient’s life and global satisfaction after the surgery. For the lateral UKA, there was a statistically significant correlation with the Likert scale (p < 0.001). Moreover, for both medial and lateral UKA no statistically significant correlation was found between the VAS scale regression and the demographic factors (Table 3).
A further correlation analysis was conducted to evaluate the potential variations between the clinical scores, OKS and KOOS, in relation to age and BMI. There was no statistically significant correlation between the score values and age, both in the medial and lateral groups. Conversely, a higher BMI was associated to statistically significant better postoperative clinical scores for the OKS and KOOS symptoms and KOOS daily (p = 0.03, p = 0.02 and p = 0.01, respectively) (Table 4).
Moreover, the overall patient satisfaction grade was measured throughout the Likert scale, which was administered at the follow-up assessment. The average value of the scale was 2.1 ± 1.1 for the medial and 2.2 ± 1.3 for lateral, highlighting the high grade of patient satisfaction after the surgery.
The survival rate free from any revision of the cohort at the latest follow-up was 96.32%, with 5 revisions for tibial aseptic loosening out of 136 surgeries performed. In particular, all the revisions were related to the aseptic loosening of the implant with four cases of mobilization of the tibial plateau and one case related to the femoral component loosening.

4. Discussion

The main finding of the present study is that the all-polyethylene tibial component in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty demonstrated significant improvements in clinical scores after surgery at a mean follow-up of 34 months, with a 96.32% implant survival.
The previous literature demonstrated how the unexplained pain is a major UKA failure reason, accounting for up to 48% of all revisions [7]. In our study, we found an excellent improvement in pain, measured throughout the VAS scale, with 35 knees having no or forgettable pain (VAS scale 0 or 1) at the time of follow-up. A statistically significant correlation was also found between the improvement in the pain (VAS scale), the improvement in the symptoms, and the activity of daily living (both measured throughout the KOOS), especially for the medial group, meaning that the improvement in the pain influenced the activity and the personal feelings of the patient in relation to his pathology, bringing an advantage to several aspects of his life. Moreover, the improvement in the pain has been statistically linked to a mean high satisfaction of the patient, as our results have shown.
The results we retrieved are overall in line with the limited literature available for all-poly UKA [9,11,31,32]. Nonetheless, despite the positive results, various concerns and major debate have been raised in recent years regarding the use of AP tibial plateau UKAs, with many authors preferring metal-backed implants as they are considered safer with lower relative risk of early revision. Koh et al. and Scott et al. showed a high failure rate (11%) of the AP implants in the first 2 years after surgery mostly related to changes in bone mineral density below the tibial plateau resulting in residual pain [13,33]. Similarly, Batthacharya et al., with a mean follow-up of 44 months, found a revision rate of 8.8% of all-poly implants compared to the metal-backed option with a reduced satisfaction rate [13,33,34].
Conversely, other studies showed comparable revision rates for both implant designs with no significant differences, mostly for aseptic loosening, between the two groups [9,35,36]. When considering survivorship, we obtained results consistent to the current literature. Walker et al. obtained 100% at 2 years and Baur et al., with a mean follow-up of 3, 4 years, obtained 96.2% of survivorship. Moreover, for the OKS score, the former study obtained an average improvement (delta) from pre- to postoperative score of 13, while Baur et al. did not describe any average improvement but looked at the median postoperative OKS value which was 43 [37,38]. Furthermore, it is noteworthy how some evidence suggest that the use of all-polyethylene tibial components is able to offer, in case of failure, a chance of an easier revision due to the preservation of bone stock, compared to metal-backed implants, which may represent a significant advantage considering the crescent number of arthroplasties and, proportionally, revisions performed in this decade [13,39].
Accordingly, this study yielded similar results in terms of survivorship to Hawi et al., who affirmed that the survivorship of an all-polyethylene implant is more dependent on the surgical technique and on the single expert operator rather than implant design (all-poly or metal-backed) [20]. Additionally, Bush et al. highlighted the importance of the correct positioning of the UKA implant in order to achieve good clinical outcomes and survivorship. They compared expert surgeon’s UKAs with robotic-assisted ones, concluding that the former achieved or exceeded the robot in terms of implant alignment, strengthening the idea that an expert surgeon can influence implant outcomes, as per our study [40].
Lastly, patient selection is crucial, and contraindications to UKAs are often a source of debate. In fact, the literature agrees on the fundamental role of an accurate pre-operative assessment in order to exclude, with certainty, the involvement of the tibiofemoral compartment and the ACL deficiency, that are considered absolute contraindications [41] and would change the indication to one in favor of a total knee arthroplasty. There is, however, still modest disagreement on age limits for UKAs. Dalury et al. conducted a study on the clinical outcomes of UKAs in middle-aged (aged between 46- and 59-year-old) population yielding excellent results at follow-up, in disagreement with classical indications for UKAs, which required age >55 to obtain significant clinical results [42]. We found no statistically significant correlations between the clinical outcomes measured through OKS score and the age of the patients, and we believe that being aged < 60 should not be considered an absolute contraindication for UKA surgery [43].
We believe that our study embodies numerous strengths that contribute to its significance. This is one of the few studies available on the topic of assessing the patient’s satisfaction, which should be considered, above all, the clinical endpoint of any interventional procedure [44,45]. Moreover, we analyzed consecutive patients operated with the same implant by a single senior experienced orthopedic surgeon, which strongly limits the inter-operator variability.
Nonetheless, the present study is not free from limitations. Firstly, its retrospective nature did not allow us to assess the rate of amelioration of clinical scores at different time-points. Moreover, the short follow-up and the lack of radiological evaluation impeded the ability to assess the long-term survival of the prosthetic implant along with the OA progression [46], hence revision rate should be carefully considered. Lastly, the small sample size and lack of a control group consisting of patients who had undergone an MB implant with a polyethylene insert prevented any direct comparison between the two implants. Further long-term clinical studies with a prospective randomized design, a larger sample size, and a longer follow-up will be needed to assess the potential superiority of the AP implants over MB implants.

5. Conclusions

The all-polyethylene tibial component in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty demonstrates significant improvements in clinical scores with a 96.32% implant survival at a mean follow-up of 34 months.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M. and T.B.; methodology, F.M.A.; formal analysis, F.M.A. and U.V.; investigation, F.M.A. and U.V.; data curation, F.M.A., G.A. and U.V.; writing—original draft preparation, T.B., F.I. and G.A.; writing—review and editing, F.I. and M.M.; supervision, F.I. and M.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of IRCCS Istituto Clinico Humanitas (study n° 3156, 22 April 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

All the collected data are published in the present manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

T.B. declares having consultancy fees for Waldemar Link, Rejoint, Smith&Nephew and Contrad Swiss, not related to the writing and publication of the present article. M.M. declares having consultancy fees for Waldemar Link, Rejoint, Smith&Nephew, not related to the writing and publication of the present article. All the other authors report no competing interests related to the present manuscript.

References

  1. Hunter, D.J.; Bierma-Zeinstra, S. Osteoarthritis. Lancet 2019, 393, 1745–1759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Hiligsmann, M.; Cooper, C.; Arden, N.; Boers, M.; Branco, J.C.; Luisa Brandi, M.; Bruyère, O.; Guillemin, F.; Hochberg, M.C.; Hunter, D.J.; et al. Health economics in the field of osteoarthritis: An expert’s consensus paper from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO). Semin. Arthritis Rheum. 2013, 43, 303–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Anzillotti, G.; Conte, P.; Di Matteo, B.; Bertolino, E.M.; Marcacci, M.; Kon, E. Injection of biologic agents for treating severe knee osteoarthritis: Is there a chance for a good outcome? A systematic review of clinical evidence. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2022, 26, 5447–5459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Loeser, R.F.; Goldring, S.R.; Scanzello, C.R.; Goldring, M.B. Osteoarthritis: A disease of the joint as an organ. Arthritis Rheum. 2012, 64, 1697–1707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Stoddart, J.C.; Dandridge, O.; Garner, A.; Cobb, J.; van Arkel, R.J. The compartmental distribution of knee osteoarthritis—A systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 2021, 29, 445–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Migliorini, F.; Tingart, M.; Niewiera, M.; Rath, B.; Eschweiler, J. Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty for knee osteoarthritis. Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 2019, 29, 947–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Scott, C.E.H.; Eaton, M.J.; Nutton, R.W.; Wade, F.A.; Evans, S.L.; Pankaj, P. Metal-backed versus all-polyethylene unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Proximal tibial strain in an experimentally validated finite element model. Bone Jt. Res. 2017, 6, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Small, S.R.; Berend, M.E.; Ritter, M.A.; Buckley, C.A.; Rogge, R.D. Metal backing significantly decreases tibial strains in a medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty model. J. Arthroplast. 2011, 26, 777–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bruni, D.; Gagliardi, M.; Akkawi, I.; Raspugli, G.F.; Bignozzi, S.; Marko, T.; Bragonzoni, L.; Grassi, A.; Marcacci, M. Good survivorship of all-polyethylene tibial component UKA at long-term follow-up. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2016, 24, 182–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bruni, D.; Iacono, F.; Russo, A.; Zaffagnini, S.; Marcheggiani Muccioli, G.M.; Bignozzi, S.; Bragonzoni, L.; Marcacci, M. Minimally invasive unicompartmental knee replacement: Retrospective clinical and radiographic evaluation of 83 patients. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2010, 18, 710–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Iacono, F.; Raspugli, G.F.; Akkawi, I.; Bruni, D.; Filardo, G.; Budeyri, A.; Bragonzoni, L.; Presti, M.L.; Bonanzinga, T.; Marcacci, M. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients over 75 years: A definitive solution? Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2016, 136, 117–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Manzotti, A.; Cerveri, P.; Pullen, C.; Confalonieri, N. A flat all-polyethylene tibial component in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: A long-term study. Knee 2014, 21 (Suppl. S1), S20–S25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Scott, C.E.H.; Powell-Bowns, M.F.R.; MacDonald, D.J.; Simpson, P.M.; Wade, F.A. Revision of Unicompartmental to Total Knee Arthroplasty: Does the Unicompartmental Implant (Metal-Backed vs All-Polyethylene) Impact the Total Knee Arthroplasty? J. Arthroplast. 2018, 33, 2203–2209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Saenz, C.L.; McGrath, M.S.; Marker, D.R.; Seyler, T.M.; Mont, M.A.; Bonutti, P.M. Early failure of a unicompartmental knee arthroplasty design with an all-polyethylene tibial component. Knee 2010, 17, 53–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Fratini, S.; Meena, A.; Alesi, D.; Cammisa, E.; Zaffagnini, S.; Marcheggiani Muccioli, G.M. Does Implant Design Influence Failure Rate of Lateral Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty? A Meta-Analysis. J. Arthroplast. 2022, 37, 985–992.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. van der List, J.P.; Kleeblad, L.J.; Zuiderbaan, H.A.; Pearle, A.D. Mid-Term Outcomes of Metal-Backed Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Show Superiority to All-Polyethylene Unicompartmental and Total Knee Arthroplasty. HSS J. 2017, 13, 232–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Hutt, J.R.B.; Farhadnia, P.; Massé, V.; LaVigne, M.; Vendittoli, P.-A. A randomised trial of all-polyethylene and metal-backed tibial components in unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee. Bone Jt. J. 2015, 97-B, 786–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Foo, W.Y.X.; Liow, M.H.L.; Chen, J.Y.; Tay, D.K.J.; Lo, N.N.; Yeo, S.J. All-polyethylene unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is associated with increased risks of poorer knee society knee score and lower satisfaction in obese patients. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2022, 142, 3977–3985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sessa, V.; Celentano, U. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: All-poly versus metal-backed tibial component-a long-term follow-up study. Int. Orthop. 2021, 45, 3063–3068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Hawi, N.; Plutat, J.; Kendoff, D.; Suero, E.M.; Cross, M.B.; Gehrke, T.; Citak, M. Midterm results after unicompartmental knee replacement with all-polyethylene tibial component: A single surgeon experience. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2016, 136, 1303–1307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Lee, M.; Cheng, D.; Chen, J.; Liow, L.; Lo, N.N.; Yeo, S.J. No difference in functional outcomes, quality of life and survivorship between metal-backed and all-polyethylene tibial components in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: A 10-year follow-up study. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2021, 29, 3368–3374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Lustig, S.; Paillot, J.-L.; Servien, E.; Henry, J.; Ait Si Selmi, T.; Neyret, P. Cemented all polyethylene tibial insert unicompartimental knee arthroplasty: A long term follow-up study. Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2009, 95, 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Murray, J.R.D.; Smith, J.R.A.; Bray, R.; Robinson, J.R.; White, P.; Porteous, A.J. Fixed bearing, all-polyethylene tibia, lateral unicompartmental arthroplasty—A final outcome study with up to 28 year follow-up of a single implant. Knee 2021, 29, 101–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Bruce, D.J.; Hassaballa, M.; Robinson, J.R.; Porteous, A.J.; Murray, J.R.; Newman, J.H. Minimum 10-year outcomes of a fixed bearing all-polyethylene unicompartmental knee arthroplasty used to treat medial osteoarthritis. Knee 2020, 27, 1018–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Voss, B.; El-Othmani, M.M.; Schnur, A.-K.; Botchway, A.; Mihalko, W.M.; Saleh, K.J. A Meta-Analysis Comparing All-Polyethylene Tibial Component to Metal-Backed Tibial Component in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Assessing Survivorship and Functional Outcomes. J. Arthroplast. 2016, 31, 2628–2636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Bonanzinga, T.; Gambaro, F.M.; Iacono, F.; Leogrande, F.; Di Lascio, L.; Marcacci, M. All-Polyethylene Versus Metal-Backed Tibial Components in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. J. Arthroplast. 2023, 39, 1353–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Alghadir, A.H.; Answer, S.; Iqbal, A.; Iqbal, Z.A. Test-retest reliability, validity, and minimum detectable change of visual analog, numerical rating, and verbal rating scales for measurement of osteoarthritic knee pain. J. Pain Res. 2018, 11, 851–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Collins, N.J.; Prinsen, C.A.C.; Christensen, R.; Bartels, E.M.; Terwee, C.B.; Roos, E.M. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): Systematic review and meta-analysis of measurement properties. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 2016, 24, 1317–1329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Medalla, G.A.; Moonot, P.; Peel, T.; Kalairajah, Y.; Field, R.E. Cost-benefit comparison of the Oxford Knee score and the American Knee Society score in measuring outcome of total knee arthroplasty. J. Arthroplast. 2009, 24, 652–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Jebb, A.T.; Ng, V.; Tay, L. A Review of Key Likert Scale Development Advances: 1995–2019. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 637547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ly, L.; Batailler, C.; Shatrov, J.; Servien, E.; Lustig, S. Satisfactory Outcomes of All-Poly Fixed Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty for Avascular Osteonecrosis Versus Osteoarthritis: A Comparative Study With 10 to 22 Years of Follow-up. J. Arthroplast. 2022, 37, 1743–1750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gagliardi, M.; Zambianchi, F.; Franz, A.; Digennaro, V.; Catani, F. All-Polyethylene Tibial Component Does Not Affect Survivorship of Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty at Mid-Term Follow-Up. J. Knee Surg. 2021, 34, 1454–1462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Koh, I.J.; Suhl, K.H.; Kim, M.W.; Kim, M.S.; Choi, K.Y.; In, Y. Use of All-polyethylene Tibial Components in Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Increases the Risk of Early Failure. J. Knee Surg. 2017, 30, 807–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bhattacharya, R.; Scott, C.E.H.; Morris, H.E.; Wade, F.; Nutton, R.W. Survivorship and patient satisfaction of a fixed bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty incorporating an all-polyethylene tibial component. Knee 2012, 19, 348–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Scott, C.E.H.; Wade, F.A.; Bhattacharya, R.; MacDonald, D.; Pankaj, P.; Nutton, R.W. Changes in Bone Density in Metal-Backed and All-Polyethylene Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. J. Arthroplast. 2016, 31, 702–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Bruni, D.; Akkawi, I.; Iacono, F.; Raspugli, G.F.; Gagliardi, M.; Nitri, M.; Grassi, A.; Zaffagnini, S.; Bignozzi, S.; Marcacci, M. Minimum thickness of all-poly tibial component unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients younger than 60 years does not increase revision rate for aseptic loosening. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2013, 21, 2462–2467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Walker, T.; Hariri, M.; Eckert, J.; Panzram, B.; Reiner, T.; Merle, C.; Gotterbarm, T.; Moradi, B. Minimally invasive lateral unicompartmental knee replacement: Early results from an independent center using the Oxford fixed lateral prosthesis. Knee 2020, 27, 235–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Baur, J.; Zwicky, L.; Hirschmann, M.T.; Ilchmann, T.; Clauss, M. Metal backed fixed-bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasties using minimal invasive surgery: A promising outcome analysis of 132 cases. BMC. Musculoskelet. Disord. 2015, 16, 177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rouanet, T.; Combes, A.; Migaud, H.; Pasquier, G. Do bone loss and reconstruction procedures differ at revision of cemented unicompartmental knee prostheses according to the use of metal-back or all-polyethylene tibial component? Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2013, 99, 687–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bush, A.N.; Ziemba-Davis, M.; Deckard, E.R.; Meneghini, R.M. An Experienced Surgeon Can Meet or Exceed Robotic Accuracy in Manual Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 2019, 101, 1479–1484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hamilton, T.W.; Pandit, H.G.; Jenkins, C.; Mellon, S.J.; Dodd, C.A.F.; Murray, D.W. Evidence-Based Indications for Mobile-Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty in a Consecutive Cohort of Thousand Knees. J. Arthroplast. 2017, 32, 1779–1785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Santoso, M.B.; Wu, L. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, is it superior to high tibial osteotomy in treating unicompartmental osteoarthritis? A meta-analysis and systemic review. J. Orthop. Surg. Res. 2017, 12, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Dalury, D.; Kelley, T.C.; Adams, M.J. Medial UKA: Favorable mid-term results in middle-aged patients. J. Knee Surg. 2013, 26, 133–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Jansen, K.; Beckert, M.; Deckard, E.R.; Ziemba-Davis, M.; Meneghini, R.M. Satisfaction and Functional Outcomes in Unicompartmental Compared with Total Knee Arthroplasty: Radiographically Matched Cohort Analysis. JBJS Open Access 2020, 5, e20.00051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Li, Z.; Chen, Z.; Wei, J.; Zeng, X.; Sun, H.; Li, Z.; Cao, X. Excellent outcomes with Oxford Uni-compartmental knee arthroplasty in anteromedial osteoarthritis patients (≤60 years) at mid-term follow-up. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2021, 22, 859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. van der List, J.P.; Zuiderbaan, H.A.; Pearle, A.D. Why Do Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasties Fail Today? J. Arthroplast. 2016, 31, 1016–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the included patient.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the included patient.
MedialLateralp
N7425
Sex (men)34 (45.95%)14 (56.00)0.384
Age at surgery64.6 ± 12.256.7 ± 10.30.005
BMI *26.1 ± 3.924.4 ± 3.60.052
MPTA (n = 72)85.6 ± 2.888.3 ± 2.70.001
LDFA (n = 72)89.4 ± 2.786.9 ± 3.20.002
Follow-up (months)35.2 ± 14.532.6 ± 12.40.481
* BMI = body mass index; MPTA = medial proximal tibial angle; LDFA = lateral distal femoral angle.
Table 2. Pain Visual Analogue Score (VAS), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales, Oxford Knee Score (OKS) variations from baseline to the follow-up assessment for medial and lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasties.
Table 2. Pain Visual Analogue Score (VAS), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales, Oxford Knee Score (OKS) variations from baseline to the follow-up assessment for medial and lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasties.
Medial Lateral
PrePostDelta (95%CI)Pre PostDelta (95%CI)p Delta M vs. Delta L
N747474252525
VAS7.61 ± 1.652.74 ± 2.26−4.86
(−5.52; −4.21)		7.24 ± 1.982.52 ± 2.43−4.72
(−5.71; −3.73)		0.818
Δ% −61.4 ± 36.6 −66.7 ± 27.6
OKS22.5 ± 12.636.6 ± 10.614.11
(10.05; 18.17)		22.6 ± 12.636.9 ± 11.814.24
(8.65; 19.83)		0.729
Δ% 142.1 ± 208.5 123.9 ± 166.7
TEGNER2.28 ± 2.022.81 ± 1.250.53
(0.00; 1.06)		3.44 ± 2.873.56 ± 2.060.12
(−1.29; 1.53)		0.917
Δ% 77.2 ± 119.6 53.5 ± 116.4
KOOS (symptoms)48.6 ± 22.478.7 ± 16.830.09
(24.31; 35.88)		48.2 ± 23.274.7 ± 23.726.48
(18.76; 34.20)		0.509
Δ% 125.1 ± 199.3 81.3 ± 79.7
KOOS (pain)42.6 ± 20.680.8 ± 15.238.23
(32.92; 43.54)		52.1 ± 28.377.3 ± 24.525.24
(17.98; 32.50)		0.011
Δ% 184.2 ± 265.5 121.8 ± 180.5
KOOS (daily)44.4 ± 22.081.2 ± 16.636.81
(31.12; 42.50)		54.5 ± 29.779.6 ± 24.025.04
(17.33; 32.75)		0.031
Δ% 186.5 ± 348.1 71.6 ± 75.5
KOOS (sport)19.9 ± 20.054.7 ± 27.834.86
(27.75; 41.98)		31.4 ± 30.756.0 ± 32.624.60
(14.13; 35.07)		0.136
Δ% 318.2 ± 422.5 244.9 ± 356.1
KOOS (QoL)27.6 ± 18.660.3 ± 22.632.65
(26.76; 38.54)		34.6 ± 30.662.4 ± 28.427.72
(18.35; 37.09)		0.392
Δ% 220.4 ± 319.7 158.5 ± 198.7
Table 3. Logistic regression of delta VAS (Visual Analogue Scale for Pain) in relation to demographic factors and clinical scores examined, divided for medial and lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasties.
Table 3. Logistic regression of delta VAS (Visual Analogue Scale for Pain) in relation to demographic factors and clinical scores examined, divided for medial and lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasties.
Medial Lateral
Coeff (95%CI)pCoeff (95%CI)p
Sex (M)0.13 (−1.19; 1.45)0.844−0.80 (−2.80; 1.21)0.418
Age at surgery0.00 (−0.05; 0.06)0.948−0.04 (−0.13; 0.06)0.460
BMI−0.03 (−0.20; 0.14)0.758−0.15 (−0.43; 0.12)0.259
MPTA (n = 72)0.11 (−0.19: 0.41)0.4630.08 (−0.41; 0.57)0.734
LDFA (n = 72)−0.13 (−0.44; 0.18)0.404−0.18 (−0.59; 0.22)0.354
Follow-up (months)−0.06 (−0.10; −0.01)0.0110.04 (−0.04; 0.12)0.329
VAS preop−1.02 (−1.34; −0.70)<0.001−0.47 (−0.95; 0.01)0.052
OKS preop0.06 (0.01; 0.11)0.0130.02 (−0.06; 0.10)0.559
Tegner preop0.18 (−0.14; 0.51)0.260−0.32 (−0.65; 0.01)0.059
KOOS preop
Symptoms0.05 (0.02; 0.08)0.001−0.03 (−0.07; 0.02)0.194
Pain0.05 (0.03; 0.08)<0.001−0.02 (−0.05; 0.02)0.328
Daily0.04 (0.02; 0.07)0.003−0.01 (−0.04; 0.02)0.538
Sport0.02 (−0.01; 0.06)0.164−0.01 (−0.05; 0.02)0.465
QoL0.03 (−0.00; 0.07)0.052−0.02 (−0.05; 0.01)0.181
Likert score 1.82 (1.40; 2.25)<0.0011.20 (0.63; 1.76)<0.001
Table 4. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and Oxford Knee Score (OKS) scores variations in relation to body mass index (BMI) and sex of the included patients.
Table 4. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and Oxford Knee Score (OKS) scores variations in relation to body mass index (BMI) and sex of the included patients.
Medial Lateral
AllAgeBMIAllAgeBMI
n74 25
OKS postop
<1910 (13.51%)70.7 ± 10.323.6 ± 1.75 (20.00%)51.2 ± 10.224.9 ± 5.7
20–296 (8.11%)58.0 ± 20.224.9 ± 3.82 (8.00%)53.5 ± 2.122.2 ± 0.5
30–3922 (29.73%)65.8 ± 9.627.7 ± 4.34 (16.00%)58.3 ± 19.324.3 ± 2.3
>4036 (48.65%)63.2 ± 12.226.0 ± 3.714 (56.00%)58.6 ± 7.854.5 ± 3.5
p 0.1790.030 0.5600.851
KOOS symptoms
<7528 (37.84%)63.5 ± 13.025.4 ± 3.811 (44.00%)51.7 ± 8.424.0 ± 4.1
76–859 (12.16%)58.9 ± 9.023.6 ± 1.93 (12.00%)51.3 ± 11.722.8 ± 5.1
>8537 (50.00%)66.7 ± 12.127.2 ± 3.911 (44.00%)63.1 ± 8.825.2 ± 2.9
p 0.1930.022 0.0160.543
KOOS pain
<7523 (31.08%)65.6 ± 13.125.2 ± 2.910 (40.00%)51.2 ± 8.724.3 ± 4.2
76–8513 (17.57%)67.1 ± 10.426.0 ± 4.51 (4.00%)5828.7
>8538 (51.35%)63.1 ± 12.326.7 ± 4.214 (56.00%)60.5 ± 24.124.1 ± 3.3
p 0.5340.321 0.0890.489
KOOS daily
<7521 (28.38%)65.0 ± 14.524.0 ± 2.79 (36.00%)51.1 ± 9.224.6 ± 4.3
76–8516 (21.62%)67.1 ± 9.326.8 ± 3.92 (8.00%)56.5 ± 6.423.3 ± 2.5
>8537 (50.00%)63.2 ± 12.127.0 ± 4.114 (56.00%)60.3 ± 10.324.4 ± 3.5
p 0.5670.010 0.1130.909
KOOS sport
<7558 (78.38%)64.1 ± 12.326.0 ± 4.116 (64.00%)55.3 ± 12.224.4 ± 4.0
76–858 (10.81%)65.3 ± 15.525.8 ± 3.23 (12.00%)57.0 ± 1.024.1 ± 4.1
>858 (10.81%)67.1 ± 8.727.1 ± 2.66 (24.00%)60.2 ± 6.624.4 ± 3.0
p 0.8020.758 0.6360.993
KOOS QoL
<7557 (77.03%)63.2 ± 12.226.0 ± 4.216 (64.00%)54.4 ± 11.823.7 ± 3.9
76–854 (5.41%)75.3 ± 14.827.6 ± 3.82 (8.00%)63.5 ± 0.727.0
>8513 (17.57%)67.4 ± 10.126.1 ± 2.37 (28.00%)59.9 ± 6.125.0 ± 3.2
p 0.1050.719 0.3320.430
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bonanzinga, T.; Adravanti, F.M.; Vitale, U.; Anzillotti, G.; Iacono, F.; Marcacci, M. All-Polyethylene Tibial Component in Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Offers Excellent Survivorship and Clinical Outcomes at Short-Term Follow-Up: A Multicenter Retrospective Clinical Study. Medicina 2024, 60, 1451. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina60091451

AMA Style

Bonanzinga T, Adravanti FM, Vitale U, Anzillotti G, Iacono F, Marcacci M. All-Polyethylene Tibial Component in Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Offers Excellent Survivorship and Clinical Outcomes at Short-Term Follow-Up: A Multicenter Retrospective Clinical Study. Medicina. 2024; 60(9):1451. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina60091451

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bonanzinga, Tommaso, Federico Maria Adravanti, Umberto Vitale, Giuseppe Anzillotti, Francesco Iacono, and Maurilio Marcacci. 2024. "All-Polyethylene Tibial Component in Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Offers Excellent Survivorship and Clinical Outcomes at Short-Term Follow-Up: A Multicenter Retrospective Clinical Study" Medicina 60, no. 9: 1451. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina60091451

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop