This article is more than 5 years old. Information may no longer be current.
Unicompartmental and multicompartmental knee arthroplasty offer distinct benefits for patients
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts
Surgeons must consider a patient’s knee pain and the risk of disease progression when choosing unicompartmental, bicompartmental or total knee arthroplasty as an appropriate treatment, according to presenters during a debate forum session.
David W. Murray, MD, PhD, Sebastien Parratte, MD, PhD, and Jan Victor, MD, PhD, discussed the merits of the multiple compartment procedures compared to unicompartmental arthroplasty. They defended unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), bicompartmental knee arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty (TKA), respectively, at the 15th EFORT Congress — a combined programme in partnership with the BOA.
In general, they agreed there is a need for each of these procedures based on the indications.
“UKA deserves a place in the toolbox of treating degenerative arthritis of the knee but the main enigma is nailing your indications and that’s your job,” Victor said.
“TKA has a better survivorship than UKA. That is clear in our minds. I think UKA is a logical operation that deserves its place with patient selection, in my view, as the weakest part of the procedure,” he said.
Murray argued that TKA is difficult to revise and defended UKA with data from national joint replacement registers that support the use of the prosthesis.
“Anterior knee pain does not compromise the procedure,” said Murray, who also reviewed the merits of fixed vs. mobile bearing UKA procedures.
He defended the arguments that revision rates are high with UKA. A study conducted by Murray and colleagues demonstrated that most surgeons do five to 10 UKAs annually. “The optimum results occur if about 50% of the annual knee replacements are ‘unis,’” Murray said.
Furthermore, he said complications are fewer with UKA than TKA.
With bicompartmental knee arthroplasty surgeons can better manage rotation according to their preferences and the patient’s needs, according to Parratte.
“You can manage size easily and you can manage the femorotibial joint line without compromise,” he said.
Ultimately, the use of bicompartmental knee arthroplasty vs. UKA comes down to management of the patellofemoral joint.
“The patellofemoral joint may be painful for the patient…that is my concern,” Parratte said.
Reference:
Debate Forum — The Unis: Multicompartmental knee replacement. Hype or hope: Presented at: 15th EFORT Congress –
a combined programme in partnership with the BOA; 4-6 June, 2014; London.
Source info:
David W. Murray, MD, FRCSC, can be reached at Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LD, United Kingdom.
Sebastien Parratte, MD, PhD, can be reached at Aix-Marseille University Center for Arthritis Surgery at Hospital Sainte-Marguerite in Marseille, France.
Jan Victor, MD, PhD, can be reached at Ghent University Hospital, Chairman of Orthopaedics, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.
Disclosure:
Murray has personal and institutional support from Biomet. Parratte receives royalties from Euros and is a consultant to Graftys Adler Orthopaedics, Arthrex Inc., Zimmer, Smith & Nephew and Moximed. Victor receive royalties from Smith & Nephew and institutional support from Biomet, Corin, Materialise, Pfizer, Smith & Nephew and Zimmer.