The Learning Curve of Patient-specific Unikondylar Arthroplasty May Be Advantageous to Off-the-shelf Implants: A Preliminary Study

Overview

Journal J Orthop

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2020 May 22

PMID 32435106

Citations 3

Authors

C Mayer

B Bittersohl

M Haversath

A Franz

R Krauspe

M Jager

C Zilkens

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction: Introducing a new arthroplasty system into clinical routine is challenging and could have an effect on early results. Since UKA are known to have failure mechanisms related to technical factors, reliable results and easy adoption are ideal. The question remains whether there are differences in objective procedure parameters in the early learning curve of different UKA systems.

Methods: two different UKA implants (Biomet Oxford[BO] followed by Conformis iuni[CI]) were introduced consecutively into clinical routine. We retrospectively analyzed the first 20 cases of each implant for one arthroplasty surgeon regarding operating time, correction of the mechanical axis, learning curve parameters, and revision rate of implants for 1.5 years postoperatively.

Results: Operating time (BO:98.3 ± 26.3min, CI:83.85 ± 21.8min (p < 0.078)), and tourniquet time differed in favor of the CI implant (BO:97.5 ± 29.5min; CI:73.5 ± 33.2 min; p < 0.017)). Mechanical alignment was restored in boths (preop:BO:mean 2.9°varus, CI:2.7°varus, postop:BOmean1.3°varus, CI:1°varus), while one BO patient and two CI patients were overcorrected. Operating time decreased from the first five implants to implants 16-20 for CI (95.2 ± 18.5min to 69 ± 21.5min, p < 0.076) and BO (130.6 ± 27.6min to 78 ± 17.3min, p < 0.009). Within 18 months of follow-up, 2 BO and 1 CI implants were revised.

Conclusion: The introduction of an UKA implant was associated with longer surgery in both implants. Procedure time seems to differ between implants, while a learning curve was observed regarding instrumentation. CI implants seem to be reliable and adaptable in a medium-volume practice. The early results of this retrospective single-surgeon study were in favor of the individualized implant. Certainly, further studies encompassing larger cohorts with various implants are needed.

Citing Articles

Learning curve of Persona Partial Knee (PPK) arthroplasty: a clinical trial.

DAmbrosi R, Milinkovic D, Migliorini F, Mariani I, Ursino N, Hewett T BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2024; 25(1):128.

PMID: 38341539 PMC: 10858461. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-024-07215-5.

Insufficient evidence to confirm benefits of custom partial knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.

Demey G, Muller J, Liebensteiner M, Pilot P, Nover L, Kort N Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021; 30(12):3968-3982.

PMID: 34792611 DOI: 10.1007/s00167-021-06766-7.

Clinical and Radiological Outcomes after Knee Arthroplasty with Patient-Specific versus Off-the-Shelf Knee Implants: A Systematic Review.

Moret C, Schelker B, Hirschmann M J Pers Med. 2021; 11(7).

PMID: 34206259 PMC: 8304027. DOI: 10.3390/jpm11070590.

References

Miettinen S, Torssonen S, Miettinen H, Soininvaara T . Mid-term Results of Oxford Phase 3 Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasties at a Small-Volume Center. Scand J Surg. 2015; 105(1):56-63. DOI: 10.1177/1457496915577022. View

Mayer C, Franz A, Harmsen J, Queitsch F, Behringer M, Beckmann J . Soft-tissue damage during total knee arthroplasty: Focus on tourniquet-induced metabolic and ionic muscle impairment. J Orthop. 2017; 14(3):347-353. PMC: 5496200. DOI: 10.1016/j.jor.2017.06.015. View

Zhang Q, Zhang Q, Guo W, Liu Z, Cheng L, Yue D . The learning curve for minimally invasive Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: cumulative summation test for learning curve (LC-CUSUM). J Orthop Surg Res. 2014; 9:81. PMC: 4173050. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-014-0081-8. View

Padgett D, STERN S, Insall J . Revision total knee arthroplasty for failed unicompartmental replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991; 73(2):186-90. View

Badawy M, Fenstad A, Bartz-Johannessen C, Indrekvam K, Havelin L, Robertsson O . Hospital volume and the risk of revision in Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the Nordic countries -an observational study of 14,496 cases. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017; 18(1):388. PMC: 5590160. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-017-1750-7. View

Koeck F, Beckmann J, Luring C, Rath B, Grifka J, Basad E . Evaluation of implant position and knee alignment after patient-specific unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee. 2010; 18(5):294-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2010.06.008. View

Lorbach O, Pape D, Mosser P, Kohn D, Anagnostakos K . [Medial unicondylar knee replacement]. Orthopade. 2014; 43(10):875-6, 878-82. DOI: 10.1007/s00132-014-3012-9. View

Seeber G, Kolbow K, Maus U, Kluge A, Lazovic D . [Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Using Patient-Specific Instrumentation - Accuracy of Preoperative Planning, Time Saving and Cost Efficiency]. Z Orthop Unfall. 2016; 154(3):287-93. DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-101559. View

Wang Q, Goswami K, Shohat N, Aalirezaie A, Manrique J, Parvizi J . Longer Operative Time Results in a Higher Rate of Subsequent Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Patients Undergoing Primary Joint Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2019; 34(5):947-953. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.01.027. View

10.

Schroer W, Barnes C, Diesfeld P, LeMarr A, Ingrassia R, Morton D . The Oxford unicompartmental knee fails at a high rate in a high-volume knee practice. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013; 471(11):3533-9. PMC: 3792243. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-013-3174-5. View

11.

Hamilton W, Ammeen D, Engh Jr C, Engh G . Learning curve with minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2009; 25(5):735-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2009.05.011. View

12.

Price A, Svard U . A second decade lifetable survival analysis of the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010; 469(1):174-9. PMC: 3008876. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-010-1506-2. View

13.

Lewold S, Goodman S, Knutson K, Robertsson O, Lidgren L . Oxford meniscal bearing knee versus the Marmor knee in unicompartmental arthroplasty for arthrosis. A Swedish multicenter survival study. J Arthroplasty. 1995; 10(6):722-31. DOI: 10.1016/s0883-5403(05)80066-x. View

14.

DellOsso G, Celli F, Bottai V, Bugelli G, Citarelli C, Agostini G . Single-Use Instrumentation Technologies in Knee Arthroplasty: State of the Art. Surg Technol Int. 2016; 28:243-6. View

15.

Baker P, Jameson S, Critchley R, Reed M, Gregg P, Deehan D . Center and surgeon volume influence the revision rate following unicondylar knee replacement: an analysis of 23,400 medial cemented unicondylar knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013; 95(8):702-9. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.L.00520. View

16.

Carpenter D, Holmberg R, Quartulli M, Barnes C . Tibial plateau coverage in UKA: a comparison of patient specific and off-the-shelf implants. J Arthroplasty. 2014; 29(9):1694-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.03.026. View

17.

Lobenhoffer P, Agneskirchner J . [Osteotomy around the knee vs. unicondylar knee replacement]. Orthopade. 2014; 43(10):923-9. DOI: 10.1007/s00132-014-3011-x. View

18.

Zermatten P, Munzinger U . The Oxford II medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: an independent 10-year survival study. Acta Orthop Belg. 2012; 78(2):203-9. View