Objective To study the short-term clinical outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for medial compartmental knee osteoarthritis,and to compare 2 kinds of unicompartmental prosthesis.Methods From March 2010 to June 2013,data of 43 patients underwent unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) were retrospectively analyzed.17 patients (17knees) used rotating platform prosthesis,and 26 patients (28 knees) used fixed bearing prosthesis.There were 7 males (7 knees)and 9 females (10 knees) in rotating platform group,with an average age of 64.1 years (range,54-82 years);while 10 males (10knees) and 17 females (18 knees) in fixed bearing group,with an average age of 62.2 years (range,43-79 years).All patients presented signs of narrowed medial joint space,medial tenderness and pain on weight-bearing.X-ray and MRI were used for documenting joint narrowing and cartilage defect.The pain and the knee functions were recorded both pre and post-operatively with knee society score (KSS),2 cases of simultaneous anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction were assessed with TegnerLysholm knee scoring scale as well.Results All 43 patients were followed up for 6 month to 37 months,and the average duration was 21.1 months.There were no dislocations,joint infection,deep venous thrombosis,prosthetic loosening,etc.The KSS in rotating platform group was 56.11 ±9.51 preoperatively,and 92.23±5.46 postoperatively.While the KSS in fixed bearing group was 57.11 ±9.56,and 93.69±6.37,respectively.There were statistical differences comparing between preoperative and postoperative KSS knee scores.There was no significant difference in KSS scores between rotating platform group and fixed bearing group.Conclusion Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is a less invasive and effective method for knee osteoarthritis in medial compartment with less complications.There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between rotating platform and fixed bearing design in terms of patients' satisfactory rate,clinical and functional outcomes in this short-term follow-up study.

Objective:To compare the effectiveness and safety of all-suture anchors and single-row suture anchors for rotator cuff repair.Methods:A prospective randomized controlled study was conducted to analyze the clinical data of 50 patients with rotator cuff tear admitted to Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine between July 2019 and September 2021. They were divided into two groups according to the random table: 25 patients to receive repair with single-row suture anchors (control group) and the other 25 with all-suture anchors (trial group). Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score and shoulder range of motion were compared between the two groups before surgery, at 3 months after surgery and at the last follow-up. The rotator cuff retear rate of the two groups was evaluated according to Sugaya classification at 6 months after surgery. Breakage or anchor loosening during surgery, healing of incision and presence of infections or neurological complications after surgery, and change of the anchor position and periosteal reaction at the insertion site at 3 and 6 months after surgery were observed in the two groups.Results:A total of 50 patients with rotator cuff tear were involved in this study, including 17 males and 33 females, aged 40-73 years [(59.1±10.3)years]. All patients were followed up for 6-9 months [(6.7±1.0)months]. The differences in VAS, UCLA shoulder score, ASES score, and shoulder range of motion between the two groups were statistically insignificant before surgery (all P>0.05). The VAS at 3 months after surgery and at the last follow-up in the control group was 2.0 (2.0, 4.0)points and 2.0 (0.0, 2.0)points, respectively, with no statistical differences from 2.0 (2.0, 2.0)points and 2.0 (0.0, 2.0)points in the trial group (all P>0.05). In the control group, the UCLA shoulder score and ASES score at 3 months after surgery and the ASES score at the last follow-up were (25.1±4.5)points, 78.8 (71.6, 85.8)points and 85.8 (85.8, 93.0)points, respectively, with no statistical differences from (26.8±4.7)points, 85.8 (82.3, 85.8)points, and 92.8 (85.8, 100.0)points in the trial group (all P>0.05). At the last follow-up, the UCLA shoulder score of the control group was (29.2±3.9)points, which was lower than that of the trial group [(31.6±2.4)points] ( P<0.05). The differences in shoulder motion between the two groups at 3 months after surgery and at the last follow-up were not statistically significant (all P>0.05). The VAS, UCLA shoulder score, and ASES score at 3 months after surgery and at the last followup in both groups were significantly improved compared to their preoperative values (all P<0.05); further improvements were observed at the last follow-up compared with those at 3 months after surgery (all P<0.05). The rotator cuff retear rate at 6 months after surgery was 16.7% (4/24) in the control group, not statistically different from 4.3% (1/23) in the trial group ( P>0.05). There were no incidences of anchor loosening or breakage during surgery. All incisions were healed after surgery, with no infections or neurological complications. No grades II to III periosteal reactions at the anchor insertion sites were observed in either group at 3, 6 months after surgery. The percentage of patients with grade 0 periosteal reaction at the anchor insertion site at 3 months after surgery was 4.2% (1/24) in the control group, significantly lower than 30.4% (7/23) in the trial group ( P<0.05). Conclusion:All-suture anchors and single-row suture anchors are effective in rotator cuff repair, but the former results in better shoulder function and fewer periosteal reactions in the anchor insertion site in the early stage.