Early promising result of bicompartmental knee replacement in middle-aged patients

Abstract

Introduction: Partial knee replacement (PKR) is one of the treatment options in middle-aged patients with less extensive knee osteoarthritis, with unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) most commonly done for medial osteoarthritis. There are numerous advantages like bone/ligament preserving and faster recovery. However, the indications of UKR remain controversial, as most patients have some patellofemoral joint (PFJ) osteoarthritis. We performed modular bicruciate-retaining bicompartmental knee replacement (BKR) in this group of patients and compared the outcome with total knee replacement (TKR). Materials and Methods: From 2016 to 2017, 14 BKR were performed in patients with medial and PFJ osteoarthritis. They were retrospectively compared with 14 TKR performed in patients with similar age and severity. The incision length, operative time, blood loss (in terms of hemoglobin drop), and length of stay were recorded. Pre- and postoperative range of motion and Knee Society knee score at 1-year follow-up were compared. Results: The mean incision length for BKR was shorter than TKR (130.1 vs. 185.1 mm), but the mean operative time was also longer (152.6 vs. 88.1 min). There was also less mean hemoglobin drop (1.8 vs. 2.6 g/dL) and shorter length of stay (7.4 vs. 9.2 days). The mean postoperative function score is better in BKR group (90.4 vs. 77.5), and the mean postoperative knee score (87.2 vs 88.9) and flexion (115.7° vs. 111.4°) were similar for both groups. Discussion: In selected patients, BKR is a good alternative to TKR. It preserves advantages of UKR while also tackle the PFJ which is the most controversial aspect of UKR. The early clinical outcome in our study is promising. However, there is a learning curve. Longer follow-up is necessary to study on the performance and survivorship as compared with UKR and TKR.

One stage bilateral unicompartmental knee replacement: Similar early clinical outcome with shorter rehabilitation and better resources utilization compared with two stage

“…Comparing with TKR, advantages of UKR include tissue preserving, less blood loss, shorter length of stay (LOS), faster recovery, 4 –6 less complications 7 with better clinical outcome 8 in correctly selected patients. This is especially beneficial to middle-aged patients, 9 as UKR permit them to resume work and social activities earlier 5 while avoiding TKR in a relatively young age. Implants for medial UKR can be further classified into mobile bearing or fixed bearing, with both types showing comparable satisfactory outcome.…”