Patellofemoral osteoarthritis (OA) and anterior knee pain sometimes are considered contraindications for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). However, several studies have demonstrated excellent patient-reported outcome scores in patients with patellofemoral OA treated with medial mobile-bearing UKA. Because these studies assessed the outcome of mobile-bearing UKA only, we were interested to see whether that finding also applies to fixed-bearing medial UKA.
(1) Does patellofemoral OA influence patient-reported outcome scores after medial fixed-bearing UKA? (2) Does untreated medial patellofemoral OA increase the revision rate after medial fixed-bearing UKA?
Between 2008 and 2015, one surgeon performed 308 medial fixed-bearing UKAs of a single design. Of those, 80 (26%) had patellofemoral OA of at least moderate severity (ICRS III or IV), and 228 (74%) did not. During that period, the surgeon did not use patellofemoral OA as a contraindication to UKA. In all, 13 patients (10%) in the patellofemoral OA group were lost before 2-year minimum followup, and 20 (11%) in the control group (without patellofemoral OA) were lost; all other patients were available, seen in the last 5 years, and included in this retrospective study. Mean (± SD) followup in the patellofemoral OA group was 39 ± 25 months, and it was 41 ± 23 in the control group. There were 100 women and 120 men. Patients had a mean age ± SD of 65 ± 10 years and mean ± SD BMI of 29 ± 4.5 kg/m2.The intraoperative status of the patellofemoral joint was assessed using the International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) classification. The primary study endpoint was the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS-12); we also compared scores on the Lonner PatelloFemoral Score (LPFS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and Short-Form 12 (SF-12). With the numbers available, we had 80% power to detect a difference of 12.3 points on the Forgotten Joint Score. A secondary endpoint was femoral or tibial component revision for any reason verified over the phone for each included patient.
With the numbers available, there was no difference in FJS-12 score between the UKA with patellofemoral OA group and the group without patellofemoral OA 71 ± 29 versus 77 ± 26, mean difference - 6; 95% CI, -16 to 4.5; p = 0.270). Likewise, with the numbers available, we saw no differences in LPFS, OKS and SF-12. There was no difference in survivorship from all-cause revision at 4 years between the patellofemoral OA group and the group without patellofemoral OA (98%; 95% CI, 85.8–99.7 versus 99.5%; 95% CI, 96.0–99.2%; p = 0.352).
Patients with medial osteoarthritis in this single-center study generally benefitted from medial fixed-bearing UKA with good-to-excellent outcomes scores at short term, whether or not medial patellofemoral wear is present.
Level III, therapeutic study.
Y. Berger, S. Ftaita, E. Thienpont, Department of Orthopaedic surgery, Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc-UCL, Brussels, Belgium
E. Thienpont, Department of Orthopaedic surgery, Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc-UCL, Av. Hippocrate 10, 1200 Brussels, Belgium, Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
One of the authors certifies that he (ET), or a member of his immediate family, has received personal fees, during the study period, in an amount of USD 10,000 to USD 100,000 from Zimmer Biomet (Warsaw, Indiana, USA); has received personal fees in an amount of less than USD 10,000 from Lima (San Daniele, Italy); has received personal fees in an amount of USD 10,000 to USD 100,000 from Medacta (Lugano, Switzerland); and has received royalties on a patent from Zimmer Biomet (Warsaw, Indiana, USA).
All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® neither advocates nor endorses the use of any treatment, drug, or device. Readers are encouraged to always seek additional information, including FDA approval status, of any drug or device before clinical use.
Each author certifies that his institution approved the human protocol for this investigation and that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research.
Received August 05, 2018
Accepted March 04, 2019
Online date: April 29, 2019