Abstract
Abstract
Objective
To evaluate the effect of medial posterior tibial slope (PTS) on mid-term postoperative range of motion (ROM) and functional improvement of the knee after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA).
Methods
Medical records of 113 patients who had undergone 124 medial UKAs between April 2009 through April 2014 were reviewed retrospectively. The mean follow-up lasted 7.6 years (range, 6.2–11.2 years). Collected were demographic data, including gender, age, height, weight of the patients. Anteroposterior (AP) and lateral knee radiographs of the operated knees were available in all patients. The knee function was evaluated during office follow-up or hospital stay. Meanwhile, postoperative PTS, ROM, maximal knee flexion and Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) knee score (pre−/postoperative) of the operated side were measured and assessed. According to the size of the PTS, patients were divided into 3 groups: group 1 (<4°), group 2 (4° ~ 7°) and group 3 (>7°). The association between PTS and the knee function was investigated.
Results
In our cohort, the average PTS was 2.7° ± 0.6° in group 1, 5.6° ± 0.9° in group 2 and 8.7° ± 1.2° in group 3. Pairwise comparisons showed significant differences among them (p < 0.01). The average maximal flexion range of postoperative knees in each group was 112.4° ± 5.6°, 116.4° ± 7.2°, and 117.5° ± 6.1°, respectively, with significant difference found between group 1 and group 2 (p < 0.05), and between group 1 and group 3 (p < 0.05). However, the gender, age, and body mass index (BMI) did not differ between three groups and there was no significant difference between groups in terms of pre−/postoperative HSS scores or postoperative knee ROM.
Conclusion
A mid-term follow-up showed that an appropriate PTS (4° ~ 7°) can help improve the postoperative flexion of knee. On the other hand, too small a PTS could lead to limited postoperative knee flexion. Therefore, the PTS less than 4° should be avoided during medial UKA.
Funder
National Natural Science Foundation of China
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference29 articles.
1. Johal S, Nakano N, Baxter M, Hujazi I, Pandit H, Khanduja V. Unicompartmental knee Arthroplasty: the past, current controversies, and future perspectives. J Knee Surg. 2018;31:992–8.
2. Newman J, Pydisetty RV, Ackroyd C. Unicompartmental or total knee replacement: the 15-year results of a prospective randomised controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91:52–7.
3. Griffin T, Rowden N, Morgan D, Atkinson R, Woodruff P, Maddern G. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for the treatment of unicompartmental osteoarthritis: a systematic study. ANZ J Surg. 2007;77:214–21.
4. Kang KT, Park JH, Koh YG, Shin J, Park KK. Biomechanical effects of posterior tibial slope on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using finite element analysis. Biomed Mater Eng. 2019;30:133–44.
5. Berger RA, Meneghini RM, Jacobs JJ, Sheinkop MB, Della Valle CJ, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO. Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum of ten years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:999–1006.
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献