Purpose: The purpose of this study is to investigate the proprioceptive function of patients with isolated articular cartilage lesions of the knee as compared to normal controls. Methods: The Cartilage group consisted of eight subjects with radiologically and arthroscopically confirmed, isolated, unilateral, articular cartilage lesions of the knee (Outerbridge grade III or IV). They were compared to 50 normal controls. Knee proprioception was assessed by dynamic postural stabilometry using the Biodex Balance SD System. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were used to evaluate all subjects. Results: Proprioception of the injured knee of the Cartilage group was significantly poorer compared to that of the control group (p < 0.001). A significant proprioceptive deficit also was observed when the uninjured knees of the Cartilage group were compared to those in the Control group (p = 0.003). There was no significant proprioceptive difference between the injured and the contra-lateral uninjured knee of the Cartilage group (p = 0.116). A significant correlation was found between the proprioception measurements of the injured and uninjured knee of the Cartilage group (r = 0.76,p = 0.030). A significant difference was observed in all PROMs (p < 0.001) between the Cartilage and Control groups. Conclusions Patients with isolated articular cartilage lesions of the knee had a significant proprioceptive deficit as compared to normal controls. The deficiency was profound and even affected the proprioceptive function of the contra-lateral uninjured knee. This study has shown that articular cartilage lesions have a major influence on knee proprioception. However, it remains uncertain as to whether a proprioceptive deficit leads to osteoarthritis or is a consequence of it.

Purpose: Combined medial tibiofemoral and symptomatic patellofemoral osteoarthritis is not amenable to unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). Total knee replacement (TKR) is an invasive option in younger adults with high functional demands. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcome of patients who have undergone UKR, bicompartmental knee replacement (BKR) and TKR up to 2 years post-operatively. Materials and methods: This prospective study comprised 133 subjects including 30 patients in the medial UKR group, 53 patients in the BKR group (combined medial UKR with patellofemoral joint replacement) and 50 patients in the TKR group. All subjects were evaluated using the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and the Western Ontario and MacMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Patients in each group were assessed using both scoring systems pre-operatively and 6 months, 1 year and 2 years post-operatively. Results: Significant improvement of OKS was found at 6 months compared to baseline for UKR (22.7 to 38.1, p = 0.046), BKR (22.6 to 36.8, p < 0.001) and TKR (16.6 to 34.5, p< 0.001). Significant improvement was also found for the WOMAC sub-scores for all three groups during this time period. After 6 months, there was no further statistically significant improvement in either outcome score in any of the groups up to the 2-year follow-up results. There was no significant difference in either outcome score post-operatively between the three groups. Conclusion The magnitude of clinical improvement following knee replacement is greatest at 6 months; thereafter, only modest improvements continue to occur. This study also found no significant differences of outcomes at 2 years after surgery among UKR, BKR and TKR. BKR is a good alternative option for combined symptomatic medial and patellofemoral arthritis of the knee.

Purpose: Combined medial tibiofemoral and symptomatic patellofemoral osteoarthritis is not amenable to unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). Total knee replacement (TKR) is an invasive option in younger adults with high functional demands. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcome of patients who have undergone UKR, bicompartmental knee replacement (BKR) and TKR up to 2 years post-operatively. Materials and methods: This prospective study comprised 133 subjects including 30 patients in the medial UKR group, 53 patients in the BKR group (combined medial UKR with patellofemoral joint replacement) and 50 patients in the TKR group. All subjects were evaluated using the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and the Western Ontario and MacMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Patients in each group were assessed using both scoring systems pre-operatively and 6 months, 1 year and 2 years post-operatively. Results: Significant improvement of OKS was found at 6 months compared to baseline for UKR (22.7 to 38.1, p = 0.046), BKR (22.6 to 36.8, p < 0.001) and TKR (16.6 to 34.5, p< 0.001). Significant improvement was also found for the WOMAC sub-scores for all three groups during this time period. After 6 months, there was no further statistically significant improvement in either outcome score in any of the groups up to the 2-year follow-up results. There was no significant difference in either outcome score post-operatively between the three groups. Conclusion The magnitude of clinical improvement following knee replacement is greatest at 6 months; thereafter, only modest improvements continue to occur. This study also found no significant differences of outcomes at 2 years after surgery among UKR, BKR and TKR. BKR is a good alternative option for combined symptomatic medial and patellofemoral arthritis of the knee.