A modified technique for tibial bone sparing in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty
10.1097/CM9.0000000000000494
- Author:
Qi-Dong ZHANG
1
;
Zhao-Hui LIU
1
;
Wei-Guo WANG
1
;
Qian ZHANG
2
;
Li-Ming CHENG
1
;
Wan-Shou GUO
1
Author Information
1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beijing Key Lab for Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100029, China
2. Graduate School, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing 100029, China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty;
Tibial bone cut;
Surgical technique;
Radiologic;
Clinical outcome
- From:
Chinese Medical Journal
2019;132(22):2690-2697
- CountryChina
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
Background:Previously, the authors modified the surgical technique to preserve tibial bone mass for Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical outcomes and values of this modified technique.
Methods:Clinical data of 34 consecutive patients who underwent the unilateral modified UKA technique (modified group, 34 knees) were retrospectively analyzed. To compare the outcome, a match-paired control group (conventional group, 34 knees) of an equal number of patients using the conventional technique system in the same period were selected and matched with respect to diagnosis, age, pre-operative range of motion (ROM), and radiological grade of knee arthrosis. Clinical outcomes including knee Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score, ROM, and complications were compared between the two groups. Post-operative radiographic assessments included hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA), joint line change, implant position, and alignment.
Results:The mean follow-up time was 38.2 ± 6.3 months. There was no difference in baseline between the two groups. The amount of proximal tibial bone cut in the modified group was significantly less than that of the conventional group (4.7 ± 1.1 mm vs. 6.7 ± 1.3 mm, t = 6.45, P < 0.001). Joint line was elevated by 2.1 ± 1.0 mm in the modified group compared with -0.5 ± 1.7 mm in the conventional group (t = -7.46, P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between the two groups after UKA with respect to HSS score, VAS score, ROM, and HKA. Additionally, the accuracy of the post-operative implant position and alignment was similar in both groups. As for implant size, the tibial implant size in the modified group was larger than that in the conventional group (χ2 = 4.95, P = 0.035).
Conclusions:The modified technique for tibial bone sparing was comparable with the conventional technique in terms of clinical outcomes and radiographic assessments. It can preserve tibial bone mass and achieve a larger cement surface on the tibial side.
