International Orthopaedics

, Volume 43, Issue 11, pp 2493–2501 | Cite as

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is superior to high tibial osteotomy in post-operative recovery and participation in recreational and sports activities

  • Man Soo Kim
  • In Jun Koh
  • Sueen Sohn
  • Ji Hwan Jeong
  • Yong InEmail author
Original Paper



To compare (1) the recovery pattern of post-operative physical activity and function in the early post-operative period and (2) the difference of participation in recreational and sports activities pre- and post-operatively following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and high tibial osteotomy (HTO).


In this prospective comparative study, 49 HTOs (49 patients) and 42 UKAs (42 patients) performed to treat medial compartmental knee osteoarthritis (OA) were included. The pain visual analog scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score (WOMAC), Tegner activity score, Lysholm knee score, and the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score were evaluated pre-operatively and post-operatively at three, six, 12, and 24 months. Participation in recreational and sports activities was also assessed pre-operatively and 24 months post-operatively.


Pre-operatively, although there were no differences in VAS, WOMAC, and Lysholm scores between the two groups, the UKA group had inferior Tegner and UCLA scores (p < 0.05). At post-operative three and six months, the UKA group showed superior VAS, WOMAC, and Lysholm scores (p < 0.05 for all). However, at 12 and 24 months post-operatively, both groups had similar outcome scores (p > 0.05 for all). When all the baseline scores were adjusted for the mean changes, the UKA group showed a significantly better UCLA score than the HTO group until 12 months after the operation (p = 0.008). The rate of return to sports activity was 94.1% in the UKA group and 75.0% in the HTO group at 24 months post-operatively (p = 0.031).


These findings indicate that UKA had better short-term functional outcomes and return to recreational and sports activities than did HTO in patients with medial OA.


Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty High tibial osteotomy Recovery Recreational activities Sports activities 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.




  1. 1.
    Koh IJ, Kim MW, Kim JH, Han SY, In Y (2015) Trends in high tibial osteotomy and knee arthroplasty utilizations and demographics in Korea from 2009 to 2013. J Arthroplast 30:939–944. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Paredes-Carnero X, Leyes M, Forriol F, Fernandez-Cortinas AB, Escobar J, Babe JG (2018) Long-term results of total knee arthroplasty after failed high tibial osteotomy. Int Orthop. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dettoni F, Bonasia DE, Castoldi F, Bruzzone M, Blonna D, Rossi R (2010) High tibial osteotomy versus unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for medial compartment arthrosis of the knee: a review of the literature. Iowa Orthop J 30:131–140PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fu D, Li G, Chen K, Zhao Y, Hua Y, Cai Z (2013) Comparison of high tibial osteotomy and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the treatment of unicompartmental osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 28:759–765. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Akizuki S, Shibakawa A, Takizawa T, Yamazaki I, Horiuchi H (2008) The long-term outcome of high tibial osteotomy: a ten- to 20-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90:592–596. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Herry Y, Batailler C, Lording T, Servien E, Neyret P, Lustig S (2017) Improved joint-line restitution in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using a robotic-assisted surgical technique. Int Orthop 41:2265–2271. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Saragaglia D, Bevand A, Refaie R, Rubens-Duval B, Pailhe R (2018) Results with nine years mean follow up on one hundred and three KAPS(R) uni knee arthroplasties: eighty six medial and seventeen lateral. Int Orthop 42:1061–1066. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Richmond JC (2013) Surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. Rheum Dis Clin N Am 39:203–211. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yim JH, Song EK, Seo HY, Kim MS, Seon JK (2013) Comparison of high tibial osteotomy and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum follow-up of 3 years. J Arthroplast 28:243–247. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zahiri CA, Schmalzried TP, Szuszczewicz ES, Amstutz HC (1998) Assessing activity in joint replacement patients. J Arthroplast 13:890–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mancuso CA, Sculco TP, Wickiewicz TL, Jones EC, Robbins L, Warren RF, Williams-Russo P (2001) Patients’ expectations of knee surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-a:1005–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ibrahim MS, Khan MA, Nizam I, Haddad FS (2013) Peri-operative interventions producing better functional outcomes and enhanced recovery following total hip and knee arthroplasty: an evidence-based review. BMC Med 11:37. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Borjesson M, Weidenhielm L, Mattsson E, Olsson E (2005) Gait and clinical measurements in patients with knee osteoarthritis after surgery: a prospective 5-year follow-up study. Knee 12:121–127. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stukenborg-Colsman C, Wirth CJ, Lazovic D, Wefer A (2001) High tibial osteotomy versus unicompartmental joint replacement in unicompartmental knee joint osteoarthritis: 7-10-year follow-up prospective randomised study. Knee 8:187–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim MS, Son JM, Koh IJ, Bahk JH, In Y (2017) Intraoperative adjustment of alignment under valgus stress reduces outliers in patients undergoing medial opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137:1035–1045. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim MS, Koh IJ, Choi YJ, Lee JY, In Y (2017) Differences in patient-reported outcomes between unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasties: a propensity score-matched analysis. J Arthroplast 32:1453–1459. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS (1957) Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis 16:494–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cooke TD, Li J, Scudamore RA (1994) Radiographic assessment of bony contributions to knee deformity. Orthop Clin North Am 25:387–393PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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 or knee. J Rheumatol 15:1833–1840PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Odenbring S, Tjornstrand B, Egund N, Hagstedt B, Hovelius L, Lindstrand A, Luxhoj T, Svanstrom A (1989) Function after tibial osteotomy for medial gonarthrosis below aged 50 years. Acta Orthop Scand 60:527–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tegner Y, Lysholm J (1985) Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res:43–49Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Naal FD, Fischer M, Preuss A, Goldhahn J, von Knoch F, Preiss S, Munzinger U, Drobny T (2007) Return to sports and recreational activity after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Am J Sports Med 35:1688–1695. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Krych AJ, Reardon P, Sousa P, Pareek A, Stuart M, Pagnano M (2017) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty provides higher activity and durability than valgus-producing proximal tibial osteotomy at 5 to 7 years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 99:113–122. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nerhus TK, Ekeland A, Solberg G, Olsen BH, Madsen JE, Heir S (2017) No difference in time-dependent improvement in functional outcome following closing wedge versus opening wedge high tibial osteotomy: a randomised controlled trial with two-year follow-up. Bone Joint J 99-b:1157–1166. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jeon YS, Ahn CH, Kim MK (2017) Comparison of HTO with articular cartilage surgery and UKA in unicompartmental OA. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 25:2309499016684092. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cho WJ, Kim JM, Kim WK, Kim DE, Kim NK, Bin SI (2018) Mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in old-aged patients demonstrates superior short-term clinical outcomes to open-wedge high tibial osteotomy in middle-aged patients with advanced isolated medial osteoarthritis. Int Orthop. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ivarsson I, Gillquist J (1991) Rehabilitation after high tibial osteotomy and unicompartmental arthroplasty. A comparative study. Clin Orthop Relat Res:139–144Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Santoso MB, Wu L (2017) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, is it superior to high tibial osteotomy in treating unicompartmental osteoarthritis? A meta-analysis and systemic review. J Orthop Surg Res 12:50. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Faschingbauer M, Nelitz M, Urlaub S, Reichel H, Dornacher D (2015) Return to work and sporting activities after high tibial osteotomy. Int Orthop 39:1527–1534. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Salzmann GM, Ahrens P, Naal FD, El-Azab H, Spang JT, Imhoff AB, Lorenz S (2009) Sporting activity after high tibial osteotomy for the treatment of medial compartment knee osteoarthritis. Am J Sports Med 37:312–318. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pietschmann MF, Wohlleb L, Weber P, Schmidutz F, Ficklscherer A, Gulecyuz MF, Safi E, Niethammer TR, Jansson V, Muller PE (2013) Sports activities after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty Oxford III-what can we expect? Int Orthop 37:31–37. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Saxon L, Finch C, Bass S (1999) Sports participation, sports injuries and osteoarthritis: implications for prevention. Sports Med 28:123–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of MedicineThe Catholic University of KoreaSeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, St. Paul’s Hospital, College of MedicineThe Catholic University of KoreaSeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations