High tibial osteotomy versus unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for Kellgren–Lawrence grade 3–4 knee osteoarthritis in younger patients: comparable improvements in patient-reported outcomes, adjusted for osteoarthritis grade and sex

Abstract

PurposePrevious studies comparing high tibial osteotomy (HTO) with unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) have seldom accounted for differing patient characteristics between both groups. This study compared patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of HTO and UKA patients, adjusted for preoperative PROs, osteoarthritis grade and sex.MethodsA retrospective study was performed analysing prospectively collected PROs, namely the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and pain/satisfaction scores, collected preoperatively and at 6 months, 12 months and 24 months postoperatively. Consecutive medial opening-wedge HTOs and medial UKAs from 2016–2019, with a preoperative Kellgren–Lawrence grade ≥ 3, aged 50–60 years, were included. Linear mixed model analyses, with the OKS over time as the primary outcome, were used.ResultsWe included 84 HTO patients (mean age 55.0 ± 3.0, 79% male, mean BMI 27.8 ± 3.4, 75% Kellgren–Lawrence grade 3) and 130 UKA patients (mean age 55.7 ± 2.8, 47% male, mean BMI 28.7 ± 4.0, 36% Kellgren–Lawrence grade 3). Response rates were ≥ 87% at all time points. Corrected for preoperative PROs, Kellgren–Lawrence grade and sex, the HTO group had a 2.5 (95% CI 1.0–4.0) points lower OKS over time than the UKA group (p = 0.001). The Numeric Rating Scale scores (NRS; 0–10) for pain at rest and during activity were higher (p < 0.01) in the HTO group. The EQ-5D-descriptive system (p < 0.01), NRS satisfaction (p < 0.01), anchor function and pain scores (p < 0.01) were lower over time in the HTO group.ConclusionUKA patients had better OKS scores, pain and satisfaction scores over time than HTO patients. However, the observed differences were below their established minimal clinically important differences. Therefore, from the patients’ perspective, HTO did not appear to be inferior to UKA under the indications outlined in this study.Level of evidence Level IV.