Unicompartmental versus Total Knee Arthroplasty in the Same Patient

Kyung Tae Kim; Song Lee; Hoon Seok Park; Kun Ho Cho; Kwan Soo Kim

doi:10.4055/jkoa.2008.43.4.451

Journal List > J Korean Orthop Assoc > v.43(4) > 1012809

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Kim, Lee, Park, Cho, and Kim: Unicompartmental versus Total Knee Arthroplasty in the Same Patient

Original Article

Journal of the Korean Orthopaedic Association

Journal of the Korean Orthopaedic Association 2008; 43(4): 451-457.

Published online: 31 August 2008

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4055/jkoa.2008.43.4.451

Unicompartmental versus Total Knee Arthroplasty in the Same Patient

Kyung Tae Kim, M.D., Song Lee, M.D., Hoon Seok Park, M.D., Kun Ho Cho, M.D., Kwan Soo Kim, M.D.

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Seoul Sacred Heart General Hospital, Seoul, Korea.

Address reprint requests to Kyung Tae Kim, M.D. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Seoul Sacred Heart General Hospital, 40-12, Chungryangri-dong, Dongdaemoon-gu, Seoul 130-867, Korea. Tel: +82.2-966-1616, Fax: +82.2-968-2394, kktkimos@hanmail.net

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the clinical and radiographic results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in the same patient, and to investigate patient preference and satisfaction.

Materials and Methods

Among the 56 patients who underwent a UKA in one knee and a TKA in the opposite knee between January 2002 and December 2004, 51 patients were followed up. The average follow-up period was 4 years.

Results

The average Knee Society Score (KSS) improved from 53.5 preoperatively to 90.7 at last follow-up in the UKA knee, and from 50.4 to 89.8 in the TKA knee. The mean range of knee motion also improved from 124.7° to 133.2° in the UKA knee, and from 122.5° to 127.1° in the TKA knee. The tibiofemoral angle changed from 0.3° of varus to 5.6° of valgus in the UKA knee, and from 2.4° of varus to 5.8° of valgus in the TKA knee. For patient preference, 23 patients (45%) preferred the UKA knee and 19 patients (37%) preferred the TKA knee. Most patients (42 patients, 82%) reported being 'very satisfied' or 'satisfied' with both knees.

Conclusion

The clinical and radiographic results of both the UKA and the TKA in the same patient were satisfactory at the 4-year follow-up. The UKA knee had a slightly better range of knee motion, but there was essentially no difference between the UKA knee and the TKA knee.

Keywords: Knee joint, Osteoarthritis, Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, Total knee arthroplasty

Figures and Tables

Fig. 1

(A, B) The preoperative radiographs of a 71-year-old woman show osteoarthritis of both knees. (C, D) The postoperative radiographs taken after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (Rt. knee) and total knee arthroplasty (Lt. knee) show findings at the 4-year follow-up.

Table 1

Clinical Results

^*p<0.001 (paired t-test); ^†p<0.05 (paired t-test); ^‡Knee Society Score; UKA, Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty; TKA, Total knee arthroplasty; F/U, follow-up.

Table 2

Radiographic Results (Tibiofemoral Angle)

^*p<0.001 (paired t-test).

Table 3

Pain in UKA/TKA Study Patients

Table 4

Patient Preference Regarding Their UKA and TKA (When Asked: Which Knee is Your Better Knee Overall?)

Table 5

Subjective Satisfaction Rate of Patients

References

1. Bae DK, Yoon KH, Ko BW, Kim YC. Survivorship of unicompartmental knee replacement. J Korean Knee Soc. 2001. 13:1–7.

2. Cameron HU, Jung YB. A comparison of unicompartmental knee replacement with total knee replacement. Orthop Rev. 1988. 17:983–988.

3. Cartier P, Sanouiller JL, Grelsamer RP. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty surgery. 10-year minimum follow-up period. J Arthroplasty. 1996. 11:782–788.

4. Clayton RA, Amin AK, Gaston MS, Brenkel IJ. Five-year results of the Sigma total knee arthroplasty. The Knee. 2006. 13:359–364.

5. Cobb AG, Kozinin SC, Scott RD. Unicondylar or total knee replacement: the patient's preference. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990. 72:166.

6. Della Valle CJ, Rosenberg AG. Callaghan JJ, Rosenberg AG, Rubash HE, Simonian PT, Wickiewicz TL, editors. Indications for total knee arthroplasty. The adult knee. 2003. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins;1047–1058.

7. Goodfellow J, O'Connor J, Murray DW. The Oxford meniscal unicompartmental knee. J Knee Surg. 2002. 15:240–246.

8. Insall J, Walker P. Unicondylar knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976. 120:83–85.

9. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the knee society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989. 248:13–14.

10. Jamali AA, Rodricks DJ, Malberg MI, Tria AJ, Rubash HE, Freiberg AA. Callaghan JJ, Rosenberg AG, Rubash HE, Simonian PT, Wickiewicz TL, editors. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. The adult knee. 2003. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins;1111–1134.

11. Jung YB. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Korean Knee Soc. 1993. 5:14–17.

12. Kim KT, Lee S, Bae EH, Kim HS, Park HS, Park KY. Short-term results and early complications of minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Korean Knee Soc. 2005. 17:119–126.

13. Kim KT, Lee S, Park HS, Cho KH, Kim KS. A prospective analysis of Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2007. 30:Suppl 5. S15–S18.

14. Laskin RS. Unicompartmental knee replacement: some unanswered questions. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001. 392:267–271.

15. Laskin RS. Unicompartmental tibiofemoral resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978. 60:182–185.

16. Laurencin CT, Zelicof SB, Scott RD, Ewald FC. Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in the same patient. A comparative study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991. 273:151–156.

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

18. Marmor L. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Ten- to 13-year follow-up study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988. 226:14–20.

19. McAuley JP, Engh GA, Ammeen DJ. Revision of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001. 392:279–282.

20. Murray DW. Mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement. Orthopedics. 2005. 28:985–987.

21. Newman JH, Ackroyd CE, Shah NA. Unicompartmental or total knee replacement? Five-year results of a prospective, randomised trial of 102 osteoarthritic knees with unicompartmental arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998. 80:862–865.

22. 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. 88:54–60.

23. Ranawat CS, Flynn WF Jr, Saddler S, Hansraj KK, Maynard MJ. Long-term results of the total condylar knee arthroplasty. A 15-year survivorship study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993. 286:94–102.

24. Repicci JA, Eberle RW. Minimally invasive surgical technique for unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J South Orthop Assoc. 1999. 8:20–27.

25. Rougraff BT, Heck DA, Gibson AE. A comparison of tricompartmental and unicompartmental arthroplasty for the treatment of gonarthrosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991. 273:157–164.

26. Scott RD. Insall JN, Scott WN, editors. Unicompartmental total knee arthroplasty. Surgery of the knee. 2001. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Churchill Livinstone;1621–1628.

27. Vince KG, Cyran LT. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: new indications, more complications? J Arthroplasty. 2004. 19:4 Suppl 1. S9–S16.

28. Weale AE, Halabi OA, Jones PW, White SH. Perceptions of outcomes after unicompartmental and total knee replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001. 382:143–153.

TOOLS

Similar articles