Knee Scores of Patients with Non-Lateral Compartmental Knee Osteoarthritis Undergoing Mobile, Fixed-Bearing Unicompartmental Knee and Total Knee Arthroplasties: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

ObjectiveTo evaluate knee scores and clinical efficacies of patients with non‐lateral unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis (OA) who randomly underwent mobile‐bearing (MB) unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), fixed‐bearing (FB) UKA, and total knee arthroplasty (TKA).MethodsFrom September 2015 to February 2017, a prospective, randomized, parallel, single‐center trial of 180 patients (78 males and 102 females; 63.3 ± 6.9 years) with non‐lateral compartmental knee OA was performed in the first author‐affiliated hospital. The patients were randomly divided into three groups (each group included 60 patients) and received medial cemented Oxford phase 3 MB UKA, medial cemented Link FB UKA, or cemented DePuy Sigma PFC TKA, respectively. A similar perioperative management and fast‐track surgery program was carried out for all patients. The knee scores at 3‐year follow‐up after operation and clinical efficacies of these three groups of patients were recorded, investigated, and compared.ResultsPrimarily, compared to the TKA group, the UKA groups (MB UKA and FB UKA) had shorter operative time (median 63.2 < 67.1 min), less bleeding (8.6 < 30.0 mL), earlier resumption of walking without crutches (3.0 < 8.0 days) and walking up and down the stairs (5.0 < 10.0 days) (P < 0.001), higher FJS scores (78.0 > 74.5) (P = 0.007), better results in all knee scores (except VAS and KSS function scores) (P < 0.05), and a larger maximum flexion angle of the knee at the 3‐year follow‐up (123.0° > 96.0°) (P = 0.001). Secondarily, compared to the TKA group, the MB UKA group showed better results in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities index (WOMAC) stiffness (83.6 > 79.6), WOMAC total (86.3 > 83.2), Oxford knee score (OKS) (20.0 < 23.0), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) (78.5 > 74.5), and a larger maximum flexion angle of the knee (123.0 > 96.0) (P < 0.05). Moreover, the FB UKA group showed higher Hospital for Special Surgery Knee Score (HSS) (91.0 > 88.5), WOMAC stiffness (84.3 > 79.6), WOMAC function (85.2 > 81.7), WOMAC total scores (87.6 > 83.2), and a larger maximum flexion angle of the knee (119.0° > 96.0°) than the TKA group (P < 0.05). Overall, there was no significant difference in all knee scores and maximum flexion angles of the knee for the MB UKA and FB UKA groups (P > 0.05). There was one case with original bearing dislocation in MB UKA group. One patient with displacement of the femoral component caused by a fall injury, and another patient, who lost his life in a car accident, were involved in the FB UKA group. There was an infection case and an intermuscular vein thrombosis case in TKA group.ConclusionUKA showed more advantages than TKA; however, there was no significant difference between the MB UKA and FB UKA groups for treatment of non‐lateral compartmental knee OA.