Oxford Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty Hybrid and Cementless Fixation: Is There Any Difference in Short-term Follow-up?

Çevik, Hüseyin Bilgehan; Büyükdoğan, Kadir; atilla, halis; Aslan, Hakan; Akdogan, Mutlu

doi:10.4274/imj.galenos.2020.49354

Oxford Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty Hybrid and Cementless Fixation: Is There Any Difference in Short-term Follow-up?

Hakan ASLAN, (Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi Türkiye, Dışkapı Yıldırım Beyazıt Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Ortopedi ve Travmatoloji Kliniği, Ankara, Türkiye)

Halis Atıl ATİLLA, (Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi Türkiye, Dışkapı Yıldırım Beyazıt Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Ortopedi ve Travmatoloji Kliniği, Ankara, Türkiye)

Mutlu AKDOĞAN, (Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi Türkiye, Dışkapı Yıldırım Beyazıt Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Ortopedi ve Travmatoloji Kliniği, Ankara, Türkiye)

Kadir BÜYÜKDOĞAN, (Koç Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi, Ortopedi ve Travmatoloji Kliniği, İstanbul, Türkiye)

Bilgehan ÇEVİK (Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi Türkiye, Dışkapı Yıldırım Beyazıt Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Ortopedi ve Travmatoloji Kliniği, Ankara, Türkiye)

İstanbul Medical Journal

0 0

Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 22 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 25 - 30 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.4274/imj.galenos.2020.49354 İndeks Tarihi: 16-06-2021

Oxford Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty Hybrid and Cementless Fixation: Is There Any Difference in Short-term Follow-up?

Öz:

Introduction: Despite a faster recovery, low complication rate, and good functional results, it has been reported that unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) may have high revisionrates. Aseptic loosening and pain are the most common causes of UKA revision. The use of cementless and hybrid UKA has been presented as a solution to improve the fixation ofprosthetic components. The main purpose of this study was to compare the early clinical outcomes and quality of fixation of cementless and hybrid UKA radiologically.Methods: A retrospective study was established with patients who received 37 cementless and 41 hybrid UKA in a minimum 2-year follow-up period. The patients’ clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Oxford knee score, EuroQol-5 dimensions, EuroQol-visual analog scale, knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score, and knee range of motion. The fixation of UKA components was evaluated with the varus-valgus angleof the tibial-femoral component, and the incidence of the radiolucent (RL) line at both the tibial and femoral componentbone interface on the radiograph. Results: There was no significant difference in any clinical outcome measurement (p>0.05). There was no significant difference between the varus-valgus and flexion-extension angles of the femoral and tibial components in both groups (p>0.05). There were significantly more tibial RL in the hybrid group than in the cementless group (p=0.025). There was nosignificant difference in the incidence of RL at the femoralcomponent-bone interface (p=0.691). Conclusion: The cementless group showed significantly less tibial RL than the hybrid group in UKA. Although there were no clinically significant differences between cementless and hybrid UKAs, cementless UKA may be preferred to prevent possible prosthesis loosening

Anahtar Kelime:

Oxford Unikondiler Diz Artroplastinde Hibrid ve Çimentosuz Fiksasyon: Kısa Süreli Takipte Fark Var mı?

Öz:

Amaç: Her ne kadar daha hızlı iyileşme, düşük komplikasyon oranı ve iyi fonksiyonel sonuçlar olsa da unikondiler diz artroplastisinin (UDA) yüksek revizyon oranlarına sahip olabileceği bildirilmiştir. UDA revizyonunun en yaygın nedenleri aseptik gevşeme ve ağrıdır. Çimentosuz ve hibrit UKA kullanımı, protez bileşenlerinin fiksasyonunu iyileştirmek için bir çözüm olarak sunulmuştur. Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, çimentosuz ve hibrid UDA’nın erken klinik sonuçlarını ve radyolojik olarak fiksasyon kalitesini karşılaştırmaktır. Yöntemler: En az 2 yıllık izlem süresi içinde 37 çimentosuz ve 41 hibrid UDA uygulanan hastalarda retrospektif bir çalışma tasarlandı. Hastaların klinik sonuçları Oxford diz skoru, EuroQol-5 ölçeği, EuroQol-görsel analog skalası, diz yaralanması ve osteoartrit sonuç skoru ve diz eklem hareket açıklığı ile değerlendirildi. Komponentlerin fiksasyonu ise tibial-femoral komponentin varus-valgus açısı ve radyografide tibial ve femoral komponent-kemik arayüzünde radyolusent (RL) çizgi insidansı ile değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Hiçbir klinik sonuç ölçütünde anlamlı bir fark yoktu (p>0,05). Her iki grupta femoral ve tibial komponentlerin varus-valgus ve fleksiyon-ekstansiyon açıları arasında anlamlı fark yoktu (p>0,05). Hibrid grupta çimentosuz gruba göre tibial RL anlamlı olarak daha fazlaydı (p=0,025). Femoral komponent-kemik arayüzeyinde RL insidansında anlamlı bir fark yoktu (p=0,691). Sonuç: UDA uygulanan çimentosuz grup hibrid gruba göre anlamlı derecede daha az tibial RL gösterdi. Çimentosuz ve hibrid UDA’lar arasında klinik olarak anlamlı bir fark olmamakla birlikte, olası protez gevşemesini önlemek için çimentosuz UDA tercih edilebilir

Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

1. Attar FG, Khaw FM, Kirk LM, Gregg PJ. Survivorship analysis at 15 years of cemented press-fit condylar total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2008; 23: 344-9.
2. Roberts VI, Esler CN, Harper WM. A 15-year follow-up study of 4606 primary total knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007; 89: 1452-6.
3. Julin J, Jämsen E, Puolakka T, Konttinen YT, Moilanen T. Younger age increases the risk of early prosthesis failure following primary total knee replacement for osteoarthritis. A follow-up study of 32,019 total knee replacements in the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2010; 81: 413-9.
4. Schroer WC, Berend KR, Lombardi AV, Barnes CL, Bolognesi MP, Berend ME, et al. Why are total knees failing today? Etiology of total knee revision in 2010 and 2011. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28(Suppl 8): 116-9.
5. Sharkey PF, Lichstein PM, Shen C, Tokarski AT, Parvizi J. Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today--has anything changed after 10 years? J Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 1774-8.
6. Duffy GP, Murray BE, Trousdale RR. Hybrid total knee arthroplasty analysis of component failures at an average of 15 years. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22: 1112-5.
7. McLaughlin JR, Lee KR. Hybrid total knee arthroplasty: 10- to 16-year followup. Orthopedics 2014; 37: 975-7.
8. Faris PM, Keating EM, Farris A, Meding JB, Ritter MA. Hybrid total knee arthroplasty: 13-year survivorship of AGC total knee systems with average 7 years followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008; 466: 1204-9.
9. Jacobs CA, Christensen CP, Karthikeyan T. Subchondral Bone Marrow Edema Had Greater Effect on Postoperative Pain After Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Than Total Knee Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31: 491- 4.
10. Kleeblad LJ, van der List JP, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD. Regional Femoral and Tibial Radiolucency in Cemented Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty and the Relationship to Functional Outcomes. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32: 3345-51.
11. Campi S, Pandit HG, Dodd CAF, Murray DW. Cementless fixation in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25: 736-45.
12. Panzram B, Bertlich I, Reiner T, Walker T, Hagmann S, Gotterbarm T. Cementless unicompartmental knee replacement allows early return to normal activity. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2018; 19: 18.
13. Stempin R, Kaczmarek W, Stempin K, Dutka J. Midterm Results of Cementless and Cemented Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty with Mobile Meniscal Bearing: A Prospective Cohort Study. Open Orthop J 2017; 11: 1173-8.
14. Pandit H, Liddle AD, Kendrick BJ, Jenkins C, Price AJ, Gill HS, et al. Improved fixation in cementless unicompartmental knee replacement: five-year results of a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95: 1365-72.
15. Dalury DF. Cementless total knee arthroplasty: current concepts review. Bone Joint J 2016; 98: 867-73.
16. Harrysson OL, Robertsson O, Nayfeh JF. Higher cumulative revision rate of knee arthroplasties in younger patients with osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004: 162-8.
17. Shimagaki H, Bechtold JE, Sherman RE, Gustilo RB. Stability of initial fixation of the tibial component in cementless total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Res 1990; 8: 64-71.
18. Carlsson A, Björkman A, Besjakov J, Onsten I. Cemented tibial component fixation performs better than cementless fixation: a randomized radiostereometric study comparing porous-coated, hydroxyapatite-coated and cemented tibial components over 5 years. Acta Orthop 2005; 76: 362-9.
19. Duffy GP, Murray BE, Trousdale RR. Hybrid total knee arthroplasty: analysis of component failures at an average of 15 years. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22: 1112-5.
20. Petursson G, Fenstad AM, Havelin LI, Gøthesen Ø, Lygre SH, Röhrl SM, et al. Better survival of hybrid total knee arthroplasty compared to cemented arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 2015; 86: 714-20.
21. Yang JH, Yoon JR, Oh CH, Kim TS. Hybrid component fixation in total knee arthroplasty: minimum of 10-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27: 1111-8.
22. Pelt CE, Gililland JM, Doble J, Stronach BM, Peters CL. Hybrid total knee arthroplasty revisited: midterm followup of hybrid versus cemented fixation in total knee arthroplasty. Biomed Res Int 2013; 2013: 854871.
23. Behery OA, Kearns SM, Rabinowitz JM, Levine BR. Cementless vs cemented tibial fixation in primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32: 1510-5.
24. van der List JP, Sheng DL, Kleeblad LJ, Chawla H, Pearle AD. Outcomes of cementless unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Knee 2017; 24: 497-507.
25. Liddle AD, Pandit H, Murray DW, Dodd CA. Cementless unicondylar knee arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 2013; 44: 261-9.
26. Jaeger S, Rieger JS, Bruckner T, Kretzer JP, Clarius M, Bitsch RG. The protective effect of pulsed lavage against implant subsidence and micromotion for cemented tibial unicompartmental knee components: an experimental cadaver study. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 727-32.
27. Campi S, Pandit HG, Oosthuizen CR. The Oxford Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: The South African Experience. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33: 1727-31.
28. Pandit H, Jenkins C, Beard DJ, Gallagher J, Price AJ, Dodd CA, et al. Cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement shows reduced radiolucency at one year. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009; 91: 185-9.

APA	Aslan H, atilla h, Akdogan M, Büyükdoğan K, Çevik H (2021). Oxford Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty Hybrid and Cementless Fixation: Is There Any Difference in Short-term Follow-up?. , 25 - 30. 10.4274/imj.galenos.2020.49354
Chicago	Aslan Hakan,atilla halis,Akdogan Mutlu,Büyükdoğan Kadir,Çevik Hüseyin Bilgehan Oxford Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty Hybrid and Cementless Fixation: Is There Any Difference in Short-term Follow-up?. (2021): 25 - 30. 10.4274/imj.galenos.2020.49354
MLA	Aslan Hakan,atilla halis,Akdogan Mutlu,Büyükdoğan Kadir,Çevik Hüseyin Bilgehan Oxford Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty Hybrid and Cementless Fixation: Is There Any Difference in Short-term Follow-up?. , 2021, ss.25 - 30. 10.4274/imj.galenos.2020.49354
AMA	Aslan H,atilla h,Akdogan M,Büyükdoğan K,Çevik H Oxford Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty Hybrid and Cementless Fixation: Is There Any Difference in Short-term Follow-up?. . 2021; 25 - 30. 10.4274/imj.galenos.2020.49354
Vancouver	Aslan H,atilla h,Akdogan M,Büyükdoğan K,Çevik H Oxford Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty Hybrid and Cementless Fixation: Is There Any Difference in Short-term Follow-up?. . 2021; 25 - 30. 10.4274/imj.galenos.2020.49354
IEEE	Aslan H,atilla h,Akdogan M,Büyükdoğan K,Çevik H "Oxford Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty Hybrid and Cementless Fixation: Is There Any Difference in Short-term Follow-up?." , ss.25 - 30, 2021. 10.4274/imj.galenos.2020.49354
ISNAD	Aslan, Hakan vd. "Oxford Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty Hybrid and Cementless Fixation: Is There Any Difference in Short-term Follow-up?". (2021), 25-30. https://doi.org/10.4274/imj.galenos.2020.49354

APA	Aslan H, atilla h, Akdogan M, Büyükdoğan K, Çevik H (2021). Oxford Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty Hybrid and Cementless Fixation: Is There Any Difference in Short-term Follow-up?. İstanbul Medical Journal, 22(1), 25 - 30. 10.4274/imj.galenos.2020.49354
Chicago	Aslan Hakan,atilla halis,Akdogan Mutlu,Büyükdoğan Kadir,Çevik Hüseyin Bilgehan Oxford Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty Hybrid and Cementless Fixation: Is There Any Difference in Short-term Follow-up?. İstanbul Medical Journal 22, no.1 (2021): 25 - 30. 10.4274/imj.galenos.2020.49354
MLA	Aslan Hakan,atilla halis,Akdogan Mutlu,Büyükdoğan Kadir,Çevik Hüseyin Bilgehan Oxford Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty Hybrid and Cementless Fixation: Is There Any Difference in Short-term Follow-up?. İstanbul Medical Journal, vol.22, no.1, 2021, ss.25 - 30. 10.4274/imj.galenos.2020.49354
AMA	Aslan H,atilla h,Akdogan M,Büyükdoğan K,Çevik H Oxford Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty Hybrid and Cementless Fixation: Is There Any Difference in Short-term Follow-up?. İstanbul Medical Journal. 2021; 22(1): 25 - 30. 10.4274/imj.galenos.2020.49354
Vancouver	Aslan H,atilla h,Akdogan M,Büyükdoğan K,Çevik H Oxford Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty Hybrid and Cementless Fixation: Is There Any Difference in Short-term Follow-up?. İstanbul Medical Journal. 2021; 22(1): 25 - 30. 10.4274/imj.galenos.2020.49354
IEEE	Aslan H,atilla h,Akdogan M,Büyükdoğan K,Çevik H "Oxford Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty Hybrid and Cementless Fixation: Is There Any Difference in Short-term Follow-up?." İstanbul Medical Journal, 22, ss.25 - 30, 2021. 10.4274/imj.galenos.2020.49354
ISNAD	Aslan, Hakan vd. "Oxford Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty Hybrid and Cementless Fixation: Is There Any Difference in Short-term Follow-up?". İstanbul Medical Journal 22/1 (2021), 25-30. https://doi.org/10.4274/imj.galenos.2020.49354