SpringerLink
Log in

Total and unicondylar knee arthroplasty are equivalent treatment options in end-stage spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee, and the size of the lesion has no influence on the results

  • KNEE
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of the present study was to compare total (TKA) and unicondylar (UKA) knee arthroplasty for spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee (SONK), and to investigate potential correlations to radiographic parameters.

Methods

All consecutive patients with a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) proven SONK treated with either TKA or UKA between 2002 and 2018 were analysed. The primary outcomes were postoperative complications and failure rates. Functional assessment included Knee Society Score (KSS), WOMAC Score, and range of motion. A novel three-dimensional measurement method was established to determine the size of the osteonecrotic lesion. All outcome parameters were correlated to the size of the necrotic lesion using Spearman’s rank correlation.

Results

The two treatment groups (34 TKAs, 37 UKAs) did not differ regarding age, body mass index, and ratio of the volume of the necrotic lesion to the volume of the femoral condyle (n.s.). At a mean follow-up of 6.6 years, patients with UKA had better functional outcomes compared to patients with a TKA (WOMAC Score 1.0 vs. 1.6, p = 0.04; KSS pain 86 vs. 83, n.s), with a similar complication rate. No correlation was found between necrotic lesion size and failure rate (n.s.).

Conclusion

UKA is a valuable treatment option for SONK leading to good functional results and a low failure rate. In case of a surgeon's concern regarding implant anchorage, TKA represents an equivalent solution. The MR-tomographic size of the osteonecrotic lesions seems to have no influence on the results.

Level of evidence

III.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aglietti P, Insall JN, Buzzi R, Deschamps G (1983) Idiopathic osteonecrosis of the knee. Aetiology, prognosis and treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Br 65:588–597

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Antoniadis A, Dimitriou D, Canciani JP, Helmy N (2019) A novel preoperative scoring system for the indication of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, as predictor of clinical outcome and satisfaction. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 139:113–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brittberg M, Winalski CS (2003) Evaluation of cartilage injuries and repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85 A(Suppl 2):58–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bruni D, Iacono F, Raspugli G, Zaffagnini S, Marcacci M (2012) Is unicompartmental arthroplasty an acceptable option for spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee? Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:1442–1451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Burn E, Sanchez-Santos MT, Pandit HG, Hamilton TW, Liddle AD, Murray DW et al (2018) Ten-year patient-reported outcomes following total and minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a propensity score-matched cohort analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26:1455–1464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chatellard R, Sauleau V, Colmar M, Robert H, Raynaud G, Brilhault J (2013) Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: does tibial component position influence clinical outcomes and arthroplasty survival? Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 99:S219–225

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Diezi C, Wirth S, Meyer DC, Koch PP (2010) Effect of femoral to tibial varus mismatch on the contact area of unicondylar knee prostheses. Knee 17:350–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fabre-Aubrespy M, Ollivier M, Pesenti S, Parratte S, Argenson JN (2016) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients older than 75 results in better clinical outcomes and similar survivorship compared to total knee arthroplasty. A Matched Controlled Study. J Arthroplasty 31:2668–2671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Flury A, Hasler J, Dimitriou D, Antoniadis A, Finsterwald M, Helmy N (2019) Midterm clinical and radiographic outcomes of 115 consecutive patient-specific unicompartmental knee arthroplasties. Knee 26:889–896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fukuoka S, Fukunaga K, Taniura K, Sasaki T, Takaoka K (2019) Medium-term clinical results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for the treatment for spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee with four to 15years of follow-up. Knee 26:1111–1116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Greco NJ, Lombardi AV Jr, Hurst JM, Morris MJ, Berend KR (2019) Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for the treatment of focal femoral osteonecrosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 101:1077–1084

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Heyse TJ, Khefacha A, Fuchs-Winkelmann S, Cartier P (2011) UKA after spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee: a retrospective analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131:613–617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jauregui JJ, Blum CL, Sardesai N, Bennett C, Henn RF 3rd, Adib F (2018) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 26:2309499018770925

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kievit AJ, Kuijer P, de Haan LJ, Koenraadt KLM, Kerkhoffs G, Schafroth MU et al (2019) Patients return to work sooner after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty than after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05667-0

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Kleeblad LJ, van der List JP, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD (2018) Larger range of motion and increased return to activity, but higher revision rates following unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in patients under 65: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26:1811–1822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kosse NM, Heesterbeek PJC, Schimmel JJP, van Hellemondt GG, Wymenga AB, Defoort KC (2018) Stability and alignment do not improve by using patient-specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26:1792–1799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Liddle AD, Judge A, Pandit H, Murray DW (2014) Adverse outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee replacement in 101,330 matched patients: a study of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet 384:1437–1445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lotke PA, Abend JA, Ecker ML (1982) The treatment of osteonecrosis of the medial femoral condyle. Clin Orthop Relat Res (171):109–116

  19. Ma T, Tu Y, Xue H, Wen T, Mei J (2017) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for spontaneous osteonecrosis. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 25:2309499017690328

    Google Scholar 

  20. Myers TG, Cui Q, Kuskowski M, Mihalko WM, Saleh KJ (2006) Outcomes of total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for secondary and spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee. J Bone Jt Surg Am 88(Suppl 3):76–82

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ollivier M, Jacquet C, Lucet A, Parratte S, Argenson JN (2019) Long-Term results of medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for knee avascular necrosis. J Arthroplasty 34:465–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Parratte S, Argenson JN, Dumas J, Aubaniac JM (2007) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for avascular osteonecrosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 464:37–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Patil S, Colwell CW Jr, Ezzet KA, D'Lima DD (2005) Can normal knee kinematics be restored with unicompartmental knee replacement? J Bone Jt Surg Am 87:332–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Radke S, Wollmerstedt N, Bischoff A, Eulert J (2005) Knee arthroplasty for spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee: unicompartimental vs bicompartimental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 13:158–162

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD (1998) Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS)–development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 28:88–96

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Scuderi GR, Bourne RB, Noble PC, Benjamin JB, Lonner JH, Scott WN (2012) The new knee society knee scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:3–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Yoon C, Chang MJ, Chang CB, Choi JH, Lee SA, Kang SB (2019) Does unicompartmental knee arthroplasty have worse outcomes in spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee than in medial compartment osteoarthritis? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 139:393–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Zuiderbaan HA, van der List JP, Khamaisy S, Nawabi DH, Thein R, Ishmael C et al (2017) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty: Which type of artificial joint do patients forget? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25:681–686

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopaedic Department, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland

    A. Flury, L. Weigelt, R. S. Camenzind, J. Hasler & S. F. Fucentese

  2. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Buergerspital Solothurn, Schoengruenstrasse 42, 4500, Solothurn, Switzerland

    A. Flury, R. S. Camenzind, J. Hasler, B. Baumgaertner & N. Helmy

  3. Department of Radiology, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    B. Fritz

Authors
  1. A. Flury
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. Weigelt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. S. Camenzind
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. B. Fritz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. Hasler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. B. Baumgaertner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. N. Helmy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. S. F. Fucentese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Flury.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from Zurich Cantonal Ethics Comission: KEK 2019–02114.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subject before the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Flury, A., Weigelt, L., Camenzind, R.S. et al. Total and unicondylar knee arthroplasty are equivalent treatment options in end-stage spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee, and the size of the lesion has no influence on the results. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 29, 3254–3261 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-06132-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-06132-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation