A novel preoperative scoring system for the indication of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, as predictor of clinical outcome and satisfaction
Proper patient selection is a crucial factor for the outcome of the unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). However, there is still not a clear consensus on which patients could benefit the utmost from a UKA. The purpose of this prospective study was to introduce a novel, preoperative, predictive score (Unicompartmental Indication Score, UIS) to aid proper patient selection in UKA.
Materials and methods
A total of 152 patients with an average age of 68 years and a mean follow-up of 27 months were evaluated preoperatively with the UIS and postoperative at every follow-up. Correlation analysis was applied to identify potential relationships between the UIS, functional outcomes, pain relief, patient satisfaction, and range of motion. The ROC analysis was used to identify the best cutoff value of the UIS, which would have predicted an optimal outcome following UKA.
The majority of the patients (91%) were satisfied with the operation, with 61% reporting excellent and 30% good satisfaction. The UIS was positively correlated to the postoperative Knee Society Score (KSS) for both pain (r = 0.26, p < 0.001) and function (r = 0.31, p < 0.001). The UIS was also positively correlated to the patient satisfaction (p = 0.46, p < 0.001) and maximum postoperative flexion (r = 0.25, p < 0.001). The ROC analysis provided an ideal cutoff for UIS at 25 points (sensitivity: 75%, sensibility: 93%, area under the curve: 86%). At a mean follow-up of 27 months (range 24–37), we observed three revisions in 152 consecutive UKA with a mean UIS of 27 points (range 20–30).
The newly introduced UIS score might be a reliable preoperative scoring system to predict patients with excellent satisfaction, functional outcome, pain relief and possibly implant survivorship following UKA, and therefore, could help the proper patient selection and decision-making in UKA.
Prospective study, II.
KeywordsUnicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) Indication Clinical Outcome Patient-reported outcomes Predictive score Patient satisfaction Revision Scoring system
There was no external funding source of funding in the current study.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
- 1.Centers for Disease C, Prevention (2009) Prevalence and most common causes of disability among adults–United States, 2005. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 58(16):421–426Google Scholar
- 9.Vasso M, Corona K, D’Apolito R, Mazzitelli G, Panni AS (2017) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: modes of failure and conversion to total knee arthroplasty. Jt 5(01):044–050Google Scholar
- 12.Iacono F, Raspugli GF, Akkawi I, Bruni D, Filardo G, Budeyri A, Bragonzoni L, Presti ML, Bonanzinga T, Marcacci M (2016) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients over 75 years: a definitive solution? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136(1):117–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2323-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Kang KT, Son J, Baek C, Kwon OR, Koh YG (2018) Femoral component alignment in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty leads to biomechanical change in contact stress and collateral ligament force in knee joint. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138(4):563–572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-018-2884-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.Epinette JA, Brunschweiler B, Mertl P, Mole D, Cazenave A,, Knee (2012) French society for H. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty modes of failure: wear is not the main reason for failure: a multicentre study of 418 failed knees. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 98(6 Suppl):S124–S130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2012.07.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar