Advertisement

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

, Volume 139, Issue 3, pp 393–403 | Cite as

Does unicompartmental knee arthroplasty have worse outcomes in spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee than in medial compartment osteoarthritis? A systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Chan Yoon
  • Moon Jong Chang
  • Chong Bum Chang
  • Ji Hye Choi
  • Seung Ah Lee
  • Seung-Baik KangEmail author
Knee Arthroplasty
  • 29 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction

The role of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) in spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee (SONK) remains controversial, even though SONK involves only one compartment of the knee joint. We aimed to compare the survival rate and clinical outcomes of UKA in SONK and medial compartment osteoarthritis (MOA) via a meta-analysis of previous studies.

Materials and methods

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2018 with keywords related to SONK and knee arthroplasty. Studies were selected with predetermined inclusion criteria: (1) medial UKA as the primary procedure, (2) reporting implant survival or clinical outcomes of osteonecrosis and osteoarthritis, and (3) follow-up period > 1 year. Quality assessment was performed using the risk of bias assessment tool for non-randomized studies. A random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled relative risk (RR) and standardized mean difference.

Results

The incidence of UKA revision for any reason was significantly higher in SONK than in MOA group (pooled RR = 1.83, p = 0.009). However, the risk of revision due to aseptic loosening was not significantly different between the groups. Moreover, when stratified by the study quality, high-quality studies showed similar risk of overall revision in SONK and MOA (p = 0.71). Subgroup analysis revealed no significant difference in failure between SONK and MOA after cemented mobile and fixed bearing UKA. Results of uncemented UKA were reported only in one study, which showed higher failure of SONK compared to MOA. Clinical outcomes after UKA were similar between SONK and MOA (p = 0.66).

Conclusions

Cemented UKA has similar survival and clinical outcomes in SONK and MOA. Prospective studies designed specifically to compare the UKA outcomes in SONK and MOA are necessary.

Keywords

Knee Osteoarthritis Arthroplasty Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty Unicondylar knee arthroplasty Spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee 

Notes

Funding

This research was supported by the Bio & Medical Technology Development Program of the National Research Foundation (NRF) funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (2017M3A9D8063538).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

402_2019_3125_MOESM1_ESM.docx (21 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 21 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Pape D, Seil R, Fritsch E, Rupp S, Kohn D (2002) Prevalence of spontaneous osteonecrosis of the medial femoral condyle in elderly patients. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 10:233–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mont MA, Marker DR, Zywiel MG, Carrino JA (2011) Osteonecrosis of the knee and related conditions. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 19:482–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yamamoto T, Bullough PG (2000) Spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee: the result of subchondral insufficiency fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82:858–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Myers TG, Cui Q, Kuskowski M, Mihalko WM, Saleh KJ (2006) Outcomes of total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for secondary and spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:76–82Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Radke S, Wollmerstedt N, Bischoff A, Eulert J (2005) Knee arthroplasty for spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee: unicompartimental vs bicompartimental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 13:158–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pandit H, Jenkins C, Barker K, Dodd CAF, Murray DW (2006) The Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement using a minimally-invasive approach. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88:54–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Servien E, Verdonk PC, Lustig S, Paillot JL, Kara AD, Neyret P (2008) Medial unicompartimental knee arthroplasty for osteonecrosis or osteoarthritis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16:1038–1042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bruni D, Zaffagnini S, Iacono F, Bragonzoni L, Lo Presti M, Neri MP, Muccioli GM, Nitri M, Raspugli G, Marcacci M (2016) High rate of implant loosening for uncemented resurfacing-type medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24:3175–3182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Langdown AJ, Pandit H, Price AJ, Dodd CAF, Murray DW, Svärd UCG, Gibbons CL (2005) Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty for focal spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee. Acta Orthop 76:688–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heller S, Fenichel I, Salai M, Luria T, Velkes S (2009) The Oxford unicompartmental knee prosthesis for the treatment of medial compartment knee disease: 2 to 5 year follow-up. Isr Med Assoc J 11:266–268Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Xue H, Tu Y, Ma T, Wen T, Yang T, Cai M (2017) Up to twelve year follow-up of the Oxford phase three unicompartmental knee replacement in China: seven hundred and eight knees from an independent centre. Int Orthop 41:1571–1577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lustig S, Paillot JL, Servien E, Henry J, Selmi TA, Neyret P (2009) Cemented all polyethylene tibial insert unicompartimental knee arthroplasty: a long term follow-up study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 95:12–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cartier P, Cheaib S (1987) Unicondylar knee arthroplasty: 2–10 years of follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty 2:157–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6:e1000097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim SY, Park JE, Lee YJ, Seo HJ, Sheen SS, Hahn S, Jang BH, Son HJ (2013) Testing a tool for assessing the risk of bias for nonrandomized studies showed moderate reliability and promising validity. J Clin Epidemiol 66:408–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bruni D, Iacono F, Russo A, Zaffagnini S, Marcheggiani Muccioli GM, Bignozzi S, Bragonzoni L, Marcacci M (2010) Minimally invasive unicompartmental knee replacement: retrospective clinical and radiographic evaluation of 83 patients. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:710–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bruni D, Gagliardi M, Akkawi I, Raspugli GF, Bignozzi S, Marko T, Bragonzoni L, Grassi A, Marcacci M (2016) Good survivorship of all-polyethylene tibial component UKA at long-term follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24:182–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhang Q, Guo W, Liu Z, Cheng L, Yue D, Zhang N (2015) Minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in treatment of osteonecrosis versus osteoarthritis: a matched-pair comparison. Acta Orthop Belg 81:333–339Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zermatten P, Munzinger U (2012) The Oxford II medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: an independent 10-year survival study. Acta Orthop Belg 78:203–209Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ji JH, Park SE, Song IS, Kang H, Ha JY, Jeong JJ (2014) Complications of medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Surg 6:365–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ma T, Tu Y, Xue H, Wen T, Mei J (2017) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for spontaneous osteonecrosis. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 25:1–5Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Collins NJ, Misra D, Felson DT, Crossley KM, Roos EM (2011) Measures of knee function: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Physical Function Short Form (KOOS-PS), Knee Outcome Survey Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADL), Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Activity Rating Scale (ARS), and Tegner Activity Score (TAS). Arthritis Care Res 63:S208–S228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zuiderbaan HA, van der List JP, Khamaisy S, Nawabi DH, Thein R, Ishmael C, Paul S, Pearle AD (2017) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty: which type of artificial joint do patients forget? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25:681–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Canetti R, Batailler C, Bankhead C, Neyret P, Servien E, Lustig S (2018) Faster return to sport after robotic-assisted lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a comparative study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138:1765–1771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bini SA, Cafri G, Khatod M (2017) Midterm-adjusted survival comparing the best performing unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasties in a registry. J Arthroplasty 32:3352–3355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Siman H, Kamath AF, Carrillo N, Harmsen WS, Pagnano MW, Sierra RJ (2017) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty vs total knee arthroplasty for medial compartment arthritis in patients older than 75 years: comparable reoperation, revision, and complication rates. J Arthroplasty 32:1792–1797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Koskinen E, Eskelinen A, Paavolainen P, Pulkkinen P, Remes V (2008) Comparison of survival and cost-effectiveness between unicondylar arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty in patients with primary osteoarthritis: a follow-up study of 50,493 knee replacements from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 79:499–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    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
  29. 29.
    Heyse TJ, Khefacha A, Fuchs-Winkelmann S, Cartier P (2011) UKA after spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee: a retrospective analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131:613–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bruni D, Iacono F, Raspugli G, Zaffagnini S, Marcacci M (2012) Is unicompartmental arthroplasty an acceptable option for spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee? Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:1442–1451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Parratte S, Argenson JNA, Dumas J, Aubaniac JM (2007) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for avascular osteonecrosis. Clin Orthop Rel Res 464:37–42Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Scott CE, Wade FA, MacDonald D, Nutton RW (2018) Ten-year survival and patient-reported outcomes of a medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty incorporating an all-polyethylene tibial component. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138:719–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Antoniadis A, Dimitriou D, Canciani JP, Helmy N (2018) A novel preoperative scoring system for the indication of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, as predictor of clinical outcome and satisfaction. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1–8Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mears SC, McCarthy EF, Jones LC, Hungerford DS, Mont MA (2009) Characterization and pathological characteristics of spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee. Iowa Orthop J 29:38–42Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ramnath RR, Kattapuram SV (2004) MR appearance of SONK-like subchondral abnormalities in the adult knee: SONK redefined. Skeletal Radiol 33:575–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Graham J, Ries M, Pruitt L (2003) Effect of bone porosity on the mechanical integrity of the bone-cement interface. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85:1901–1908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Debi R, Elbaz A, Mor A, Kahn G, Peskin B, Beer Y, Agar G, Morag G, Segal G (2017) Knee osteoarthritis, degenerative meniscal lesion and osteonecrosis of the knee: Can a simple gait test direct us to a better clinical diagnosis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 103:603–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hernigou P, Deschamps G (2002) Patellar impingement following unicompartmental arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84:1132–1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgerySeoul Bumin HospitalSeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgerySeoul National University College of Medicine, SMG-SNU Boramae Medical CenterSeoulSouth Korea
  3. 3.Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, College of MedicineKyung Hee UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  4. 4.Seoul National University College of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations