Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois.
Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
J Arthroplasty. 2018 Feb;33(2):362-365. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.09.009. Epub 2017 Sep 21.
Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has been shown to be an effective procedure to treat isolated lateral compartment osteoarthritis with excellent long-term survivorship. Whether a medial parapatellar approach or a lateral parapatellar approach is superior in lateral UKA is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a difference in intermediate-term clinical outcomes in patients undergoing lateral UKA through a lateral vs medial parapatellar approach.
We retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of 65 patients who underwent lateral UKA with a minimum of 2-year follow-up. Fifty-two patients (80%) had a lateral approach and 13 (20%) a medial parapatellar approach. Patient demographics, preoperative and postoperative radiographic findings, need for revision surgery, Knee Society Score, and range of motion were assessed.
Overall survivorship was 94% at a mean of 82 months; with the sample size available for study, there was no difference in survivorship between the groups. There was no difference in Knee Society Score or revision to total knee arthroplasty (5% vs 7%, P = 1.000) between the medial and lateral approach groups. Comparatively, the lateral approach group did have significantly greater postoperative flexion (123.6° vs 116.5°, P = .006) and greater improvement in flexion from preoperative measurements (3.0 vs -8.0°, P = .010).
Although our sample size was small, we could not demonstrate a difference in revision rates or clinical outcome scores when comparing a lateral or a medial approach with lateral UKA at intermediate-term follow-up. A lateral approach did have greater postoperative flexion, but its clinical significance remains undetermined.
外侧单髁膝关节置换术(UKA)已被证明是一种治疗孤立性外侧间室骨关节炎的有效方法,具有出色的长期生存率。在外侧 UKA 中,内侧髌旁入路与外侧髌旁入路哪个更优越尚不清楚。本研究旨在确定通过外侧与内侧髌旁入路行外侧 UKA 患者在中期临床结果上是否存在差异。
我们回顾性分析了一组连续的 65 例接受外侧 UKA 治疗且随访时间至少 2 年的患者。52 例(80%)采用外侧入路,13 例(20%)采用内侧髌旁入路。评估患者的人口统计学资料、术前和术后影像学发现、是否需要翻修手术、膝关节学会评分和关节活动度。
平均随访 82 个月时,总体生存率为 94%;根据可用于研究的样本量,两组之间的生存率无差异。内侧和外侧入路组之间在膝关节学会评分或翻修为全膝关节置换术方面无差异(5%比 7%,P=1.000)。相比之下,外侧入路组的术后膝关节屈曲度显著更大(123.6°比 116.5°,P=0.006),且与术前测量相比,膝关节屈曲度的改善程度更大(3.0°比-8.0°,P=0.010)。
尽管我们的样本量较小,但在中期随访时,比较外侧或内侧入路与外侧 UKA,我们无法证明翻修率或临床结果评分存在差异。外侧入路术后膝关节屈曲度更大,但其临床意义尚不确定。