Advertisement

The patient results and satisfaction of knee arthroplasty in a validated grading system

  • Christiaan Rudolf OosthuizenEmail author
  • Catherine Van Der Straeten
  • Innocent Maposa
  • Christian Hugo Snyckers
  • Duwayne Peter Vermaak
  • Sebastian Magobotha
Original Paper
  • 18 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction

The validated Knee Osteoarthritis Grading System (KOGS) was implemented and clinical results were compared with patient satisfaction data and implant survivorship in a multi-centre study with surgeons familiar with unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

This is also the first study to evaluate the prevalence of UKA and TKA in consecutive osteoarthritis (OA) knee arthroplasties assessed by this system..

Method

A consecutive cohort of knees was gathered at three different institutions as categorized by KOGS and surgically treated with the recommended implant unless clinical reasons or patient preference precluded such an option.

One thousand one hundred seventy-seven consecutive knees were evaluated including 311 TKA (26%), 695 medial UKA (59%), 154 lateral UKA (13%) and 17 PFA (2%) and the results of the categories evaluated with the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and the complications reflected in the different categories.

Results

The failure rate of the UKA (3.5%) or TKA (1.6%) is not higher than accepted results in the literature and the difference in complications is negligible between the UKA (72%) and TKA (26%) cohorts.

Revision of a UKA to a TKA as an endpoint was 0.58% with ipsilateral progression at 0.8% over a period of five to 84 months (mean follow-up of 36 months) despite the ‘excessive’ proportion of UKA in this cohort.

The Oxford Score improvement is significant in TKA and UKA and contributes to the acceptable outcomes (The OKS for TKA improved from 20 pre-operatively to 36 post-operatively and the UKA improved from 22 pre-operatively to 39 post-operatively).

Conclusion

KOGS achieves acceptable early survival and functional results when implemented and is a suitable tool for identifying the preferred implant as was validated.

Keywords

X-ray Osteoarthritis Grading Knee Arthroplasty Replacement 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Margaret Houman (Research Manager) and Andricha Viljoen (Researcher).

Author declarations

We, the authors declare that this manuscript is original, has not been published before and is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.

We confirm that the manuscript has been read and approved by all named authors and that there are no other persons who satisfied the criteria for authorship but are not listed. All authors have participated in the research. We further confirm that the order of authors listed in the manuscript has been approved by all of us.

We understand that the Corresponding Author, CR Oosthuizen, is the sole contact for the Editorial process.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they received no research grants from funding agencies for this research.

Author 1 is an ad hoc paid consultant for Zimmer Biomet and Amplitude. Author 2 has received a speaker honorarium for a presentation on general aspects of Research and Innovation from Smith & Nephew.

No other interests required declaration as no benefits in any form have been received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee at the University of the Witwatersrand (WITS) to study the data and X-rays of the individual orthopaedic practices with Clearance Certificate Nos. M1704111 and M1704112. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the above named institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

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

Copyright and license term

The appendix containing the synopsis of KOGS and the KOGS flowchart with radiographs was published as an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY-NC-ND. [Oosthuizen CR, Takahashi T, Rogan M, et al. (2019) The Knee Osteoarthritis Grading System for Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 34:450–455.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.11.011], which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source.

References

  1. 1.
    Kazarian GS, Lonner JH, Maltenfort MG et al (2018) Cost-effectiveness of surgical and nonsurgical treatments for unicompartmental knee arthritis: a Markov model. J Bone Joint Surg Am 100:1653–1660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS (1957) Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis 16:494–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Murray DW, Parkinson RW (2018) Usage of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 100-B:432–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Adelani MA, Mall NA, Brophy RH et al (2016) The use of MRI in evaluating knee pain in patients aged 40 years and older. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 24:653–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ritter MA, Keating EM, Sueyoshi T et al (2016) Twenty-five-years and greater, results after nonmodular cemented total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 31:2199–2202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Escobar A, Quintana JM, Aróstegui I et al (2003) Development of explicit criteria for total knee replacement. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 19:57–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Riddle DL, Perera RA, Jiranek WA, Dumenci L (2015) Using surgical appropriateness criteria to examine outcomes of total knee arthroplasty in a United States sample. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 67:349–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liddle AD, Judge A, Pandit H, Murray DW (2014) Adverse outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee replacement in 101 330 matched patients: a study of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet 384:1437–1445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D’Amato M, Ensini A, Leardini A et al (2018) Conventional versus computer-assisted surgery in total knee arthroplasty: comparison at ten years follow-up. Int Orthop 43:1355–1363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wylde V, Beswick A, Bruce J et al (2018) Chronic pain after total knee arthroplasty. EFORT Open Rev 3:461–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Migliorini F, Tingart M, Niewiera M et al (2019) Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty for knee osteoarthritis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 29:947–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lons A, Putman S, Pasquier G et al (2017) Metallic ion release after knee prosthesis implantation: a prospective study. Int Orthop 41:2503–2508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Peersman G, Verhaegen J, Favier B (2019) The forgotten joint score in total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. Int Orthop (Online).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-019-04342-w
  14. 14.
    Pandit H, Hamilton TW, Jenkins C et al (2015) The clinical outcome of minimally invasive Phase 3 Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a 15-year follow-up of 1000 UKAs. Bone Joint J 97-B:1493–1500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Willis-Owen CA, Brust K, Alsop H et al (2009) Unicondylar knee arthroplasty in the UK National Health Service: an analysis of candidacy, outcome and cost efficacy. Knee 16:473–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man 15th Annual Report (2018). In: http://www.njrreports.org.uk/Portals/0/PDFdownloads/NJR%2015th%20Annual%20Report%202018.pdf. Accessed 11 Mar 2019
  17. 17.
    Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ, Murray DW (2010) A critique of revision rate as an outcome measure: re-interpretation of knee joint registry data. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92-B:1628–1631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rodríguez-Merchán CE, Gómez-Cardero P (2018) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: current indications, technical issues and results. EFORT Open Rev 3:363–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cho WJ, Kim JM, Kim WK et al (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 42:2357–2363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim MS, Koh IJ, Sohn S et al (2019) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is superior to high tibial osteotomy in post-operative recovery and participation in recreational and sport activities. Int Orthop (Online).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4272-5
  21. 21.
    Saragaglia D, Bevand A, Refaie R et al (2018) Results with nine years mean follow up on one hundred and three KAPS® uni knee arthroplasties: eighty six medial and seventeen lateral. Int Orthop 42:1061–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Oosthuizen CR, Takahashi T, Rogan M et al (2019) The knee osteoarthritis grading system for arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 34:450–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liebensteiner M, Wurm A, Gamper D et al (2019) Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty is better in patients with pre-operative complete joint space collapse. Int Orthop 43:1841–1847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Oosthuizen C, Burger S, Vermaak D et al (2015) The X-ray knee instability and degenerative score (X-KIDS) to determine the preference for a partial or a total knee arthroplasty (PKA/TKA). South African Orthop J 14:61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hamilton TW, Pandit HG, Lombardi AV et al (2016) Radiological decision aid to determine suitability for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: development and preliminary validation. Bone Joint J 98-B:3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Beard DJ, Pandit H, Gill HS et al (2007) The influence of the presence and severity of pre-existing patellofemoral degenerative changes on the outcome of the Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89-B:1597–1601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Liddle AD, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray DW (2015) Patient-reported outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study of 14 076 matched patients from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Bone Joint J 97-B:793–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zha GC, Feng S, Chen XY, Guo KJ (2018) Does the grading of chondromalacia patellae influence anterior knee pain following total knee arthroplasty without patellar resurfacing? Int Orthop 42:513–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pisanu G, Rosso F, Bertolo C et al (2017) Patellofemoral arthroplasty: current concepts and review of the literature. Joints 05:237–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Knifsund J, Hatakka J, Keemu H et al (2017) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasties are performed on the patients with radiologically too mild osteoarthritis. Scand J Surg 106:338–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tecame A, Savica R, Rosa MA, Adravanti P (2019) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in association with medial unicompartmental knee replacement: a retrospective study comparing clinical and radiological outcomes of two different implant design. Int Ortop (Online).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-019-04341-x
  32. 32.
    Wilson HA, Middleton R, Abram SGF et al (2019) Patient relevant outcomes of unicompartmental versus total knee replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 364:l352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Liddle AD, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray DW (2016) Effect of surgical caseload on revision rate following total and unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 98:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ernstbrunner L, Imam MA, Andronic O et al (2018) Lateral unicompartmental knee replacement: a systematic review of reasons for failure. Int Orthop 42:1827–1833CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Private Orthopaedic PracticeJohannesburgSouth Africa
  2. 2.Division of Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity of the WitwatersrandJohannesburgSouth Africa
  3. 3.Head of the Health Innovation and Research InstituteGhent University HospitalGhentBelgium
  4. 4.Faculty of Health Sciences, Wits School of Public HealthUniversity of the WitwatersrandJohannesburgSouth Africa
  5. 5.Private Orthopaedic PracticePretoriaSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations