Abstract:Introduction:
The ideal procedure for isolated patellofemoral arthritis is a controversial topic. Patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) is an option that aims to restore normal kinematics to the knee while preserving bone. PFA has been shown to have benefits compared with total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in this patient population but has historically had a high failure rate. Revision rates are improving with modern implants and tight indications but still remain higher than TKA. This review summarizes cu… Show more
“…It can be considered a bridging surgery for younger patients until they require conversion to TKA. Bond et al’s recently reported that the new third-generation implants showed great promise, with outstanding functional outcomes and a significantly lower risk of mistracking and implant problems [ 84 ]. Fig.…”
Background
Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is one of the effective interventions for the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. Moreover, it has multiple advantages over total knee arthroplasty (TKA), including reduced intraoperative blood loss, decreased risk of transfusion, and faster recovery. This study aimed to discuss critical technical considerations regarding UKR and some of the controversies and updates.
Methods
We conducted a review to provide an overview of the controversies and technical considerations about UKR in several aspects. Only peer-reviewed articles were included, up to December 2023 using PubMed, Google Scholar, ERIC, and Cochrane database for systematic reviews databases.
Result
UKR is associated with superior patient-reported clinical and functional outcomes, as well as shorter hospital stays, fewer postoperative complications, and revealed favorable outcomes in patients’ return to sport. The choice between mobile- and fixed-bearing prostheses depends, in part, on the surgeon’s preference. The mobile-bearing UKR is a less constrained prosthesis and can potentially result in less wear, but it is more technically demanding. While no significant difference between mobile-bearing versus fixed-bearing prostheses, cementless is superior to cemented design. Furthermore, UKR can be a good alternative for high tibial osteotomy (HTO) and still can be considered after a failed HTO. Lastly, recent reviews have shown a revision rate comparable to that of TKA. This is probably influenced by Improved comprehension of the best indications, patient selection criteria, as well as of the design, materials, and technological advances.
Conclusion
UKR treatment for unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis is secure and effective. Based on clinical and functional outcomes, decreased morbidity and mortality, and cost-effectiveness, long-term studies suggest that UKR is superior to TKA. Further investigation in this area is warranted.
“…It can be considered a bridging surgery for younger patients until they require conversion to TKA. Bond et al’s recently reported that the new third-generation implants showed great promise, with outstanding functional outcomes and a significantly lower risk of mistracking and implant problems [ 84 ]. Fig.…”
Background
Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is one of the effective interventions for the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. Moreover, it has multiple advantages over total knee arthroplasty (TKA), including reduced intraoperative blood loss, decreased risk of transfusion, and faster recovery. This study aimed to discuss critical technical considerations regarding UKR and some of the controversies and updates.
Methods
We conducted a review to provide an overview of the controversies and technical considerations about UKR in several aspects. Only peer-reviewed articles were included, up to December 2023 using PubMed, Google Scholar, ERIC, and Cochrane database for systematic reviews databases.
Result
UKR is associated with superior patient-reported clinical and functional outcomes, as well as shorter hospital stays, fewer postoperative complications, and revealed favorable outcomes in patients’ return to sport. The choice between mobile- and fixed-bearing prostheses depends, in part, on the surgeon’s preference. The mobile-bearing UKR is a less constrained prosthesis and can potentially result in less wear, but it is more technically demanding. While no significant difference between mobile-bearing versus fixed-bearing prostheses, cementless is superior to cemented design. Furthermore, UKR can be a good alternative for high tibial osteotomy (HTO) and still can be considered after a failed HTO. Lastly, recent reviews have shown a revision rate comparable to that of TKA. This is probably influenced by Improved comprehension of the best indications, patient selection criteria, as well as of the design, materials, and technological advances.
Conclusion
UKR treatment for unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis is secure and effective. Based on clinical and functional outcomes, decreased morbidity and mortality, and cost-effectiveness, long-term studies suggest that UKR is superior to TKA. Further investigation in this area is warranted.
Background:
Patellofemoral arthroplasty is indicated in patients with isolated patellofemoral arthritis in whom nonoperative treatment has failed
2
. The goal of the presently described procedure is to provide relief from patellofemoral arthritis pain while maintaining native knee kinematics
2
.
Description:
Patient radiographs are carefully reviewed for isolated patellofemoral arthritis in order to determine the appropriateness of robotic-assisted patellofemoral arthroplasty. Magnetic resonance imaging can be performed preoperatively to help confirm isolated patellofemoral arthritis. We perform this procedure with use of the MAKO Surgical Robot (Stryker). Preoperative computed tomography is performed to plan the bone resection, the size of the implant, and the positioning of the device. The steps of the procedure include (1) medial parapatellar arthrotomy, (2) intraoperative inspection to confirm isolated patellofemoral arthritis, (3) patellar resurfacing, (4) placement of optical arrays and trochlear registration, (5) trochlear resection, (6) trialing of implants, (7) removal of the optical array, (8) impaction of final implants, (9) confirmation of appropriate patellar tracking, and (10) closure.
Alternatives:
Alternatives to patellofemoral arthroplasty include standard nonoperative treatment, bicompartmental arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty, tibial tubercle osteotomy, partial lateral facetectomy, and arthroscopy
2
.
Rationale:
Patellofemoral arthroplasty is indicated in patients with isolated patellofemoral arthritis in whom nonoperative treatment has failed
2
. Patellofemoral arthroplasty may be superior to total knee arthroplasty because it helps treat pain that affects patient quality of life and activities of daily living while also preserving greater tibiofemoral bone stock
2
. We recommend against performing patellofemoral arthroplasty in patients with arthritis of the tibiofemoral joints
2
.
Expected Outcomes:
In properly selected patients, outcomes include improvement in patient pain and function
1
. One study found that robotic-assisted patellofemoral arthroplasty may result in improved patellar tracking compared with non-robotic-assisted patellofemoral arthroplasty
1
; however, functional outcomes were found to be similar between procedures, and data for all non-robotic-assisted controls were retrospectively captured
1
.
Important Tips:
Confirm isolated patellofemoral arthritis on radiographs and/or magnetic resonance imaging.Review the preoperative plan for appropriate positioning of the trochlear implant.○ Confirm coverage of the trochlear groove.○ Avoid medial overhang.○ Avoid lateral overhang.○ Avoid anterior femoral notching.○ Avoid impingement of the trochlear component into the notch.○ Avoid excessive prominence of the trochlear component on the anterior femoral cortex.○ General principles are to place the trochlear component in 0° to 6° of flexion and 0° to 2° of external rotation.Robotic-assisted trochlear resurfacing is accurate and efficient.
Acronyms and Abbreviations:
CT = computed tomography
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
