Impact of Polyethylene Thickness on Clinical Outcomes and Survivorship in Medial Mobile-Bearing Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty

The thickness of the polyethylene bearing in medial unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) is determined by the depth of the tibial resection, degree of correctable deformity, and balance of the knee. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether polyethylene thickness in medial mobile-bearing UKA i...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of arthroplasty 2021-07, Vol.36 (7), p.2440-2444
Hauptverfasser: Crawford, David A., Lapsley, Lauren, Hurst, Jason M., Morris, Michael J., Lombardi, Adolph V., Berend, Keith R.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The thickness of the polyethylene bearing in medial unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) is determined by the depth of the tibial resection, degree of correctable deformity, and balance of the knee. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether polyethylene thickness in medial mobile-bearing UKA impacts clinical outcomes and survivorship. A retrospective review from 2004 to 2017 identified patients who underwent a primary mobile-bearing medial UKA with 2-year minimum follow-up or revision. A total of 2305 patients (3030 knees) met inclusion criteria. Patients were divided in 2 groups: thin bearing (group 1): 3-mm or 4-mm bearing and thick bearing (group 2): ≥ 5 mm. The thin group consisted of 2640 knees (87%), whereas the thick group had 390 knees (13%). Preoperative and postoperative demographics, range of motion, Knee Society scores, complications, and reoperations were evaluated. Mean follow-up was 5.2 years (range, 0.5 to 12.6). There was no significant difference between groups in postoperative range of motion or Knee Society scores (P > .05). Manipulations were performed in 1.3% of patients and not significantly different between groups. The all-cause revision rate for group 1 was 4.02% and group 2 was 4.58% (P = .6). Revision rates for tibial aseptic loosening were significantly higher in group 2 (1.8%) than those in group 1 (0.7%) (P = .04). There was no significant difference in failure rates between groups for tibial collapse or fracture, femoral aseptic loosening, arthritic progression, bearing dislocation, or other cause of revision. This study demonstrated that thicker bearings in medial UKA increased the risk of tibial aseptic loosening, but not all-cause failures or clinical outcomes.
ISSN:0883-5403
1532-8406
DOI:10.1016/j.arth.2021.02.062