Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bi-unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty: a matched paired study with early clinical results

  • Orthopaedic Surgery
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

The authors performed a matched paired study between two groups: bi-unicompartmental (Bi-UKR) versus total knee replacements (TKR) for the treatment of isolated bicompartmental tibio-femoral knee arthritis with an asymptomatic patello-femoral joint. The Authors believe that Bi-UKR could achieve comparable outcomes than TKR, but with a real less invasive surgery and maintaining a higher joint function.

Materials and methods

A total of 22 patients with bicompartmental tibio-femoral knee arthritis, who underwent Bi-UKR between January 1999 and March 2003, were included in the study (group A). In all the knees the arthritic changes were graded according to the classification of Älback. All patients had an asymptomatic patello-femoral joint. All patients had a varus deformity lower than 8°, a body-mass index lower than 34, no clinical evidence of ACL laxity or flexion deformity and a preoperative range of motion of a least 110°. At a minimum follow-up of 48 months, every single patient in group A was matched with a patient who had undergone a computer assisted TKR between August 1999 and September 2002 (group B). In the Bi-UKR group, in two cases we registered intraoperatively the avulsion of the treated tibial spines, requiring intra-operative internal fixation and without adverse effects on the final outcome. Statistical analysis of the results was performed.

Results

At a minimum follow-up of 48 months there were no statistical significant differences in the surgical time while the hospital stay was statistically longer in TKR group. No statistically significant difference was seen for the Knee Society, Functional and GIUM scores between the two groups. Statistically significant better WOMAC Function and Stiffness indexes were registered for the Bi-UKR group. TKR implants were statistically better aligned with all the implants positioned within 4° of an ideal hip–knee–ankle (HKA) angle of 180°.

Conclusions

The results of this 48 months follow-up study suggest that Bi-UKR is a viable option for bicompartmental tibio-femoral arthritis at least as well as TKR but maintaining a higher level of function.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Älback S (1968) Osteoarthrosis of the knee. A radiographic investigation. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh) 277 Suppl:7–72

    Google Scholar 

  2. Asharaf T, Newman JH, Evans RL, Ackroyd CE (2002) Lateral survivorship and clinical experience over 21 years unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg 84:1126–1130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Banks SA, Frely BJ, Boniforti F, Reischmidt C, Romagnoli S (2005) Comparing in vivo kinematics of unicondylar and bi-unicondylar knee replacement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 13:551–556

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW (1988) Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip and knee. J Rheumatol 15:1833–1840

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Berger RA, Meneghini RM, Jacobs JJ, Skeinkop MB, Della Valle CJ, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO (2005) Results of unicompartimental knee arthroplasty at a follow-up of ten-years. J Bone Joint Surg 87-A:999–1006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Berger RA, Sanders S, Gerlinger T, Della Valle C, Jacobs JJ, Rosenberg AG (2005) Outpatient total knee arthroplasty with a minimally invasive technique. J Arthroplasty 207(Suppl 3):33–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bert JM (2005) Unicompartmental knee replacement. Orthop Clin North Am 36(4):513–522

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Confalonieri N, Manzotti A, Pullen C (2004) Comparison of a mobile with a fixed tibial bearing unicompartmental knee prosthesis: a prospective randomized trial using a dedicated outcome score. Knee 11:357–362

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Confalonieri M, Manzotti A (2005) Mini-invasive computer assisted di-unicompartimental knee replacement. Int Med Robot 1(4):45–50

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Fuchs S, Frisse D, Tibesku CO, Genkinger M, Laaß H, Rosenbaum D (2002) Proprioceptive function, clinical results and quality of life after unicondylar sledge prostheses. Am J Phys Med Rehab 81:478–482

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Fuchs S, Tibesku CO, Frisse D, Genkinger m, Laaß H, Rosenbaum D (2005) Clinical and functional of uni- and bicondylar sledge prostheses. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 13:197–202

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Goodfellow JW, O’Connor J (1986) Clinical results of the Oxford knee. Surface arthroplasty of the tibiofemoral joint with a meniscal bearing prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 205:21–42

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hernigou P, Deschamps G (2004) Posterior slope of the tibial implant and the outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A(3):506–511

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hollinghurst D, Stoney J, Ward T, Gill HS, Newman JH, Murray DW, Beard DJ (2006) No deterioration of kinematics and cruciate function 10 years after medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Knee 13(6):440–444

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1998) Rationale of the Knee Society Clinical Rating System. Clin Orthop 248:13–14

    Google Scholar 

  16. Isaac SM, Barker KL, Danial IN, Beard DJ, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2007) Does arthroplasty type influence knee joint proprioception? A longitudinal prospective study comparing total and unicompartmental arthroplasty. Knee 14(3):212–217

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kozinn SC, Scott R (1989) Unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 71A(1):145–150

    Google Scholar 

  18. Laskin RS (2005) Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty: the results justify its use. Clin Orthop Relat Res 440:54–59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Laurencin CT, Zelicof SB, Scott RD, Ewald FC (2001) Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty for the treatment of gonarthrosis. Clin Orthop 273:151–156

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ma HM, Lu YC, Ho FY, Huang CH (2005) Long-term results of total condylar knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 20:580–584

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Manzotti A, Confalonieri N, Pullen C (2006) Grafting of tibial bone defects in knee replacement using Norian skeletal repair system. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 126(9):594–598

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Manzotti A, Confalonieri N, Pullen C (2007) Unicompartmental versus computer-assisted total knee replacement for medial compartment knee arthritis: a matched paired study. Int Orthop 31(3):315–319

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Murray DW (2005) Mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement. Orthopaedics 28(9):985–987

    Google Scholar 

  24. Newman JH, Ackroyd CE, Shah NA (2001) Unicompartmental or total knee replacement? J Bone Joint Surg 80B:862–865

    Google Scholar 

  25. Pagnano MW, Clarke HD, Jacofsky DJ, Amendola A, Repicci JA (2005) Surgical treatment of the middle-aged patient with arthritic knees. Instr Course Lect 54:251–259

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pandit H, Beard DJ, Jenkins C, Kimstra Y, Thomas NP, Dodd CAF, Murray DW (2006) Combined ACL reconstruction and Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 88B:887–892

    Google Scholar 

  27. Pandit H, Van Duren BH, Gallagher JA, Beard DJ, Dodd CA, Gill HS, Murray DW (2008) Combined anterior cruciate reconstruction and Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: in vivo kinematics. Knee 15(2):101–106

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Patil S, Colwell CW, Ezet KA, D’Lima DD (2005) Can normal knee kinematics be restored with Unicompartmental Knee Replacement? J Bone Joint Surg 87A:332–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Pavone V, Boettner F, Fickert S, Sculco TP (2001) Total condylar knee arthroplasty: a long term follow-up. Clin Orthop 388:18–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Pennington DW, Swienckowski JJ, Lutes WB, Drake GN (2006) Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: survivorship and technical consideration at an average follow-up of 12.4 years. J Arthroplasty 21:13–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Price AJ, Short A, Keller C, Beard D, Gill H, Pandit H, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2005) Ten-year in vivo wear measurement of a fully congruent mobile bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 87B:1403–1407

    Google Scholar 

  32. Repicci JA (2003) Mini-invasive knee unicompartmental arthroplasty: bone-sparing technique. Surg Technol Int 11:282–286

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Sah AP, Scott R (2007) Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty through a medial approach. J Bone Joint Surg 89-A:1048–1053

    Google Scholar 

  34. Stewart HD, Newton G (1992) Long-term results of the Manchester knee.Surface arthroplasty of the tibiofemoral joint. Clin Orthop Relat Res 278:138–146

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Swienckowski JJ, Pennington DW (2004) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients sixty years of age or younger. J Bone Joint Surg 86 A(Suppl 1 Pt 2):131–142

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Weale AE, Halabi OA, Jones PW, White SH (2001) Perceptions of out-comes after unicompartmental and total knee replacements. Clin Orthop 382:143–153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ist Orthopaedic Department, C.T.O. Hospital, Istituti Clinici di Perfezionamento, Milan, Italy

    N. Confalonieri & A. Manzotti

  2. Bioengineering Department, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy

    P. Cerveri & E. De Momi

  3. Via S. Pertni 21, Cambiago, 20040, Milan, Italy

    A. Manzotti

Authors
  1. N. Confalonieri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Manzotti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. Cerveri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. E. De Momi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Manzotti.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Confalonieri, N., Manzotti, A., Cerveri, P. et al. Bi-unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty: a matched paired study with early clinical results. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 129, 1157–1163 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-008-0713-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-008-0713-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation