Date post: | 08-May-2015 |
Category: |
Health & Medicine |
Upload: | dr-sushil-paudel |
View: | 2,658 times |
Download: | 3 times |
Current conceptsCurrent concepts in in Unicondylar knee Unicondylar knee arthroplasty arthroplasty and and High tibial osteotomy High tibial osteotomy in management of in management of unicompartmental unicompartmental osteoarthritis of knee.osteoarthritis of knee.
Dr. Sushil Paudel
What is unicompartmental What is unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis?knee osteoarthritis?
What is unicompartmental What is unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis?knee osteoarthritis?
Any recommendations_ _ _?
Yes— the concept of anteromedial arthritis (White et al)-
•A pathologic entity arising in the setting of an intact ACL
What all surgical options do we have What all surgical options do we have for unicompartmental osteoarthritis for unicompartmental osteoarthritis of the knee?of the knee?
Arthroscopic chondral debridement.
Allograft/ autograft surface replacement.
High tibial osteotomy.Unicondylar knee
arthroplasty (UKA).Total (tricompartmental)
knee arthroplasty (TKA).
But why do not all knees need But why do not all knees need treatment?treatment?
?
Natural HistoryNatural History
1. Role of Alignment (Sharma et al, JAMA 2001, 286)
Varus Worsens the problem ◦ Odds for radiological progression increased 4
fold Severity of varus Directly Correlated to radiologic
progression
2. Baseline Stage of Disease (Cerejo et al, Arthritis Rheum 2003 Oct )
◦ K-L score 3 – Risk of progression 10 fold
Varus affects Damaged Knees more3. Dynamic Loading (Miyazaki et al, Ann Rheum Dis 2002 Jul)
Varus (Adductor Moment)=Progression
How do I proceedHow do I proceedBrief understanding of the
procedures.Long term results of each.Intertechnique comparision.Experts’ recommendations.
Brief overview of HTOBrief overview of HTOUsually done for medial
compartment knee osteoarthritis with varus malalignment.
Corrects the malalignment and redistributes the stresses relieving pain and restoring the function.
Types of upper tibial Types of upper tibial osteotomiesosteotomies
Lateral closing wedge osteotomyMedial opening wedge osteotomy
with bone graft.Dual osteotomy.Dome (barrel vault) osteotomy of
Macquet.Osteotomy using external fixators:
◦Ilizarov◦External fixators.
High tibial osteotomyHigh tibial osteotomy
Indications:◦ Classic: age <60 yrs.
varus <150
◦ Absolute: Diffuse osteoarthritis. Tibiofemoral
subluxation. Inflammatory arthritis. Menisectomy in the
compartment. Unrealistic patient.
• Relative:• Age >65 yrs.• Obese (>1.32X
ideal BW).• Poor ROM <900
• Non-specific knee pain.
• Contraindications:
Recommended principles Recommended principles Static and dynamic angle
measurement◦ Gait analysis
Is there IR/ER of lower extremity ? Does patient walk with additional varus / valgus
thrust during stance and acceleration phase?
Ligamentous laxityAnteroposterior instabilityPatient factors
◦ Height of patient!!
Salient features Salient features
Accuracy is the key
Precise planning.
Address ligament laxity.
Lateral closing wedge Lateral closing wedge osteotomyosteotomy
Jackson described the lateral closing wedge osteotomy popularised by Coventry
Lateral closing wedge Lateral closing wedge osteotomyosteotomy
Angle of correction:◦ Classical : Coventry suggested 1mm10
!!Not all patients have tibial width of 56
mm!!
◦More accurate measure is trigonometric
method:
Y=X tan (+b)Chao and Sim (1995) have developed OASIS (osteotomy analysis and simulation software) – for surgical planning of complex deformities.
Types of closing wedge Types of closing wedge osteotomyosteotomy
Above tibial Above tibial tubercletubercle◦ Large cancellous
surface◦ Close to
deformity◦ Time honored◦ Minimal learning
curve◦ Smaller incision
Behind tibial Behind tibial tubercletubercle◦ Stable fixation◦ No step off◦ Can displace tibial
tubercle anteriorly- Macquet effect on patellofem. arthritis
◦ No patellar tendon scarring
• Below tibial Below tibial tubercletubercle• Large proximal
fragment• Allows correction
in multiple planes• No bone removed• Minimal incision• No retropatellar
scarring• Normal Q-angle
Depending upon site of osteotomy - advantages compared.
Medial opening wedge Medial opening wedge osteotomyosteotomy
Closing vs. opening wedgeClosing vs. opening wedgeAdvantages:
◦ Time honored◦ Commonly
available jig◦ Higher union rate◦ Fixation covered
with soft tissue◦ Decreases tibial
slope
Advantages:◦ Easy exposure◦ No fibular
osteotomy required
◦ Options of fixation wide
◦ May increase MCL tension
◦ Restores bone stock
Ilizarov methodIlizarov method
Ilizarov methodIlizarov method
Opening Wedge - OrthofixOpening Wedge - Orthofix
Complications after HTOComplications after HTOUndercorrectionThromboembolic disease.Peroneal palsyNonunion.InfectionVascular injuryProblems inherent to internal fixation.Intra-articular fracture
The Skeptics sayThe Skeptics say
But even if you do an HTO,
7 years later,
an arthroplasty will be needed,
so don’t spoil the knee for the future!!
Long term result - HTOLong term result - HTONaudie et al, Clin Orthop 1999
Oct 10-22 year FU Closing wedge osteotomy
◦Probability of Failure ◦Age>50 years ◦Lateral thrust ◦Insufficient Valgus
80% survivorship at 10 years
Long term result - HTOLong term result - HTOSprenger et al, JBJS 2003, Mar 76 osteotomies Closing wedge with internal
fixation Mean FU 10.8 yrs
◦90% survivorship at 10 years ◦Femoro-Tibial angle 8-16 degrees
Long Term result - HTO Long Term result - HTO Choi et al, J Orth Sci, 2001
◦10-24 years Yasuda et al, Bull Hosp Jt Dis, 1991 ◦10-15 years
Aglietti et al, J Knee Surg, 2003 Jan ◦10-21 years Precise Restoration of Valgus Angle equals better survivorship
TKR after HTOTKR after HTO
Ideal HTO for TKR:◦Opening wedge osteotomy above the tibial
tubercle and the lax medial collateral ligament (MCL). Obviates the problems:
Patella infera Scarred patellofemoral ligament.
Lifts the medial tibial condyle. Tightens MCL.
Restores almost normal alignment in relation to tibial shaft.
TKR after HTOTKR after HTORitter et al
◦39 bilateral TKR ◦Avg 8 years after unilateral HTO
FU of 7 years ◦No difference in
Knee Score Function Score Xray
Ritter et al JBJS 2000, Sep
TKR after HTOTKR after HTO
20 patient TKR post HTO, 20 matched primary TKR
Mean FU 5 yrs TKA after HTO technically challenging
but No statistical difference in Functional
Scores
Karabatsos et al, Can J Surg 2002, Apr
HTO: problems of conversion
• Prior incisions • Hardware • Joint line distortion • Malunion / nonunion • Patella baja • Offset tibial shaft • Retropatellar tendon adhesions • Peroneal palsy • Infection
Deformity Tibial offset
Patellar distortion
Klinger et al
• Hemicallotasis in 22 cases, FU 16 m
• 79 days in fixator (2-4 m)
• 9% pin tract infection
• 9% hematomas (requiring surgery)
Klinger et al; AOTS 2001
Revision of HTO to TKR
• Jackson et al; Journal of arthroplasty 1994
• 30% serious complications • 20% deep infection after revision of HTO to
TKA
• Madan et al; Bull H J D 2003
• 29 HTO, 17% poor results • 21% of TKRs revised in < 8 y
TKR after HTO technically demanding, significant balancing problems, results inferior to primary
Conversion of HTO to TKR
• Technical difficulties & subtle clinical differences (Haddad JoA 2000)
• Results approach not equal those of primary (Katz JBJS 87)
• Technically more challenging, results inferior (Karabatsos Can JS 2002)
• No difference ( Meding JBJS 2000, Staeheli 87)
Unicondylar knee Unicondylar knee arthroplastyarthroplasty
A resurgence !
Unicondylar knee Unicondylar knee arthroplastyarthroplasty“Unicondylar”: refers to a device
with two components that resurface the tibiofemoral articulation.
“Unicompartmental”: refers to the philosophy of resurfacing only the medial or lateral compartment, with a unicondylar implant.Now used interchangeably !!! Why?
Unicondylar knee Unicondylar knee arthroplastyarthroplasty
Indications:◦ Classically: unicompartmental osteoarthritis of the
knee in a low-demand, elderly, thin patient (>60yrs) with:** competence of both the cruciates and collateral
ligaments**◦Currently accepted patient selection criteria
Patients >60 yrs <82 kg wt. Low level of activity Minimal rest pain. ROM- minimum arc of 900
Flexion contracture <50
Passively correctible angular deformity ≤ 100 varus or 150 valgus.
ContraindicationsContraindicationsGeneral:
◦ Age <60yrs.◦ Weight >95 kgs.◦ High activity level.◦ Patello- femoral pain.◦ Contralateral tibiofemoral joint arthritis:◦ Inflammatory arthritis.◦ Symptomatic ACL insufficiency.◦ PCL insufficiency.◦ Collateral ligament insufficiency.◦ Varus >150; valgus>150; flexion contracture >
100.
PrinciplesPrinciples
Anteromedial arthritisOsteonecrosis
◦ Presently indicated for osteonecrosis localised to subchondral bone.
Rheumatoid arthritis.◦ Best results when both compartments are
replaced (Kay and Martin; McIntosh prosthesis)
◦ Knutson reported increasing failure rates. Pain due to ongoing synovitis. Degeneration in C/L compartment.
**Currently not recommended**
PrinciplesPrinciples
Lateral vs. medial diseaseBoth can be treated.
◦Lateral prosthesis 5-15% only.◦Higher failure rate (Gunther et al, Ansari
et al) Dislocation of the bearing
? Due to variable elastic properties of MCL. Sloutions:
Lateral parapatellar arthrotomy. Release of popliteus tendon Increase height of posterior lip around meniscal
bearing.
Selected implantsSelected implantsMcintosh acrylic prosthesis (1950)
Mckeever prosthesis.St. Georg sledge (1960); {Waldemar link, Hamburg,Germany}Marmor modular UKA (1970’s) {smith and nephew, Memphis, In}Brigham (1974) {Johnson and Johnson, New Brunswick, NJ}Oxford mobile bearing prosthesis (1978) {Biomet, Warsaw, IN)Porous coated anatomic Knee (PCA knee, 1980’s) {Howmedica,
Allendale, NJ}Miller Galante UK system (Zimmer, Warsaw, IN)Repicci UKA prosthesis (Biomet) Interpositional implants
◦Unispacer interpositional knee prosthesis {Sulzer, Austin, TX}
Teflon↓
Titanium↓
Vitallium (1964)
UKA: Joint Preserving
• ACL & PCL, lateral meniscus retained • Minimal bone resection: 2-4 mm resected • No overcorrection – load sharing
Function
• Rapid recovery after minimally-invasive UKA
• Twice as fast as open UKA, thrice as fast as TKR
• Home in 24-48 h
• No difference in accuracy
(Price JoA 2001)
MIS UKA
Erect
Postop xrays
Results of UKA
Author No. FU y Survivorship Revised
Pennington ‘03 46 11 93% 2
Yang ‘03 47 10-15 95% @ 10y, 85% @ 15y
Argenson ‘02 147 3-10 94% at 10 y
Romanowski ‘02 136 Av 8 11
Squire ‘99 140 15-22 849% @22yr 14
Murray ‘98 143 Av 7 98% at 10 y 5
Cartier ‘96 60 10-18 93% at 10-12y
Swedish Registry, Lewold Acta 98
• 14,772 UKA
• UKA is ‘safe primary procedure, good patient satisfaction, range, pain relief and few serious complications’
Conversion of UKA to TKRConversion of UKA to TKR
Conversion of UKA to TKR
• Revision of UKA less difficult than revision of TKR (Chesnut CORR 91)
• As successful as primary if minimal resection initially; graft, cement, stems in 50% (Barrett & Scott JBJS 87)
McAuley et al
• 30 revisions of UKA to TKR • Autograft (not allograft) in 10, primary
femoral components in all; 25 CR • 14 stemmed tibial components; 8
wedges • Mean ROM 111 deg • Revisions ‘straightforward’
McAuley et al CORR 2001
The unispacerThe unispacer®®
Metallic tibial hemiarthroplasty.◦ Translates freely on tibial plateau as
determined by conforming articulation of its top surface with femoral condyle. NOT useful in lateral compartment OA
Femoral rollback causes posterior dislocation/ soft tissue impingement or both.
◦ Richard hallock showed overall 1yr revision rate to be 21%
50% higher than McKeever arthroplasty.
Eventual role uncertain (Scott R.D; CORR 416, 164-166;2003)
Benefits of UKA
1. Short hospital stay
2. Full range of motion
3. Speedy recovery and ability to walk unaided
4. Sit cross-legged and on the floor
5. Reciprocal stair-climbing, brisk walking, jogging, golf
6. Joint preserving minimally-invasive operation 7. Documented 10y success >90% 8. Future surgery facilitated, not compromised 9. Functional results are optimum and recovery
speedy 10. Cosmetically acceptable for isolated medial OA
So how do we decide?So how do we decide?
HTOUKA
UKA
UKAUKA
UKA
UKA
UKA
UKA
UKA
HTO
HTO
HTO
HTO
HTO
HTOHTO
HTO
HTO
HTO
Idealism for choosing Idealism for choosing treatmenttreatment
Proven Efficacy of Treatment◦ Pain relief: durable, predictable,
reproducible success rate◦ Preserve bone & tissues ◦ Should not compromise future Surgery ◦ Function optimal ◦ Recovery speedy ◦ Cosmetically acceptable
Infrastructure Training Cost Lifestyle
HTO: Long-term results
Author No. FU y Results
Vainionpaa 81 103 5-10 18% -> TKR @ 7y
Coventry 93 87 3-14 66% survival @ 10y
Holden 88 45 10 70% exc-good
Hernigou 87 93 10-13 45% exc-good @ 10y
Matthews 88 40 50% @ 5y, 28% @9y
Ritter 88 78 Survival 58% @15y
Insall 84 83 5-15 63%, 23%->TKR @ 9y
Aglietti et al
• 120 closing wedge HTO, 10-21 y FU • @ 15 y 49% exc-good, 51% fair-poor • 14% varus recurred, 19% patella baja • 1/3 revised to TKR @ 11 y • 96% @ 5y, 78% @ 10y, 57% @ 15y
Aglietti et al; J Knee S, 2003
Is there any direct Is there any direct comparison available?comparison available?
UKA superior to HTO
• Better results, less late deterioration
(Broughton JBJS 86) – extended study.
(Weale and Newman)
• Better gait velocity & muscle strength
(Ivarsson & Gillquist CORR 91)
• Better pain relief (Jackson JoA 94; Katz
JBJS 87)
Stukenborg - Colsman
7-10 y prospective, randomised study of HTO vs UKA • More intra- and post-op complications after
HTO • Survivorship @ 7-10 y:
• 77% UKA vs 60% HTO
Stukenborg-Colsman; Knee 2001
Is UKA that Is UKA that innocent?innocent?
#!@?
Can we revise HTO to Can we revise HTO to UKA?UKA?
NO{Rees et al; JBJS 2001}
HTO is a contraindication to UKA.
“Demanding
procedure, needs special expertise, risk of early failure” (Lindstrand JoA 2000)
Unicondylar knee arthroplasty
Unicondylar knee arthroplasty
• 10,474 UKA Swedish Registry (Robertsson JBJS 2001)
• ‘Long-term results related to number performed by the unit, probably expressing the standards of management in selecting patients and performing the operation’
Long Term Results - UKALong Term Results - UKA
• Patient Age – 60+ • i.e. TKR age
• Stress Very Strict Patient selection
• Stress Attention to alignment
The REAL DEBATEUKA vs TKA
• Patient Age – 60+ • i.e. TKR age
• Stress Very Strict Patient selection
• Stress Attention to alignment
The REAL DEBATEUKA vs TKA
TKR after UKA
• It’s a Revision • Significant
• Incidence of Bone loss • Requirement for Grafting • Requirement for wedge augmentation
• It’s a Revision • Significant
• Incidence of Bone loss • Requirement for Grafting • Requirement for wedge augmentation
Some questions Some questions unansweredunanswered1. Are there any specific
contraindications for UKA?◦ PCL deficiency◦ ACL deficiency:
ACL defeciency leads to early arthritic changes
Do not expect UKA to perform better in ACL deficient knee (Murray et al – showed inferior results)
Similarly avoid in cases of previous patellectomies.
Some questions Some questions unansweredunanswered
2. The amount of correction required.◦ Previously physiologic correction or slight
overcorrection recommended. Lead to early C/L compartment OA.
◦ So, now leaving slight varus recommended.
Ecker et al showed that one of the greatest risk factors for tibial component
loosening is residual varus.
So the question is what is the amount of correction required?
Some questions Some questions unansweredunanswered3. What configuration of implant is
optimal?◦ Barkel et al showed that stress in knee
prosthesis increases exponentially when implant <6mm. To accommodate > poly resect more. In metal back-up – still a thinner poly.
◦ Is this the Achilles heel of UKA?
Can stresses be reduced by using a conforming upper surface in a mobile
bearing implant? awaiting reply!
Some questions Some questions unansweredunanswered4. Does patient truly have
unicompartmental osteoarthritis?◦ Can clinical examination only be sufficient?
Does pain in C/L compartment C/I surgery? What about S/S referred to patellofemoral joint?Cartier et al performed UKA + PF replacement
abandoned for favour of TKA.
◦ Should arthroscopy be routinely done? Simultaneous arthroscopy! Arthroscopy done several weeks prior!
Some questions Some questions unansweredunanswered
MRI◦ No role in pre-op planning-
Overestimates ACL insufficiency and degree of OA (Sharpe et al; Knee 2001;8, 213-218)
Bone scan.Problem Not all patients have localised
degenerative arthritis to one compartment- they may be more marked in one!!
So, the question is – How many/ few degenerative changes can be accepted in
other compartments for which a UKA is indicated?
Are we overloaded ?Are we overloaded ?
The principle a surgeon The principle a surgeon should keep in mindshould keep in mind
“ An arthroplasty has an unknown but finite life whereas an osteotomy has the potential to last the patient a life time”
– Wagner H.
Any Indian perspectiveAny Indian perspectiveOsteotomy still relevant in third
world countries. Devgan et al: med J. Malaysia 2003 Mar; 58
(1); 62-8.
What the experts have to What the experts have to say?say?Factors assessed in deciding between
HTO and UKA◦ Age ◦ Weight◦ Occupation◦ Avocation◦ Range of movements◦ Deformity◦ Subluxation
What experts have to say?What experts have to say?Favour HTO in
◦Young, heavy, active (particularly male) with functional range of motion.
Prefer UKA in ◦An old, light, sedentary patient or a
middle aged female.Severe deficiency and
subluxation◦Do TKR.
ReferencesReferences1) Jamali A.A; The adult knee (vol I-II); Callaghan et al
eds; Lippincott- Williams-Wilkins Ist edition; 20032) Mckeever; CORR; 1960; 18; 86-953) Marmor L.; CORR; 1983; 94: 242-2484) Callaghan et al ; Instr course lect; 2001; 50: 431-
4495) Laskin R. S: CORR 2001, 392: 267-2716) Cartier et al : J Arth; 1996: 11; 782-7867) Ansari et al : Acta orthop scand 1997: 68: 430-4348) Scott R.D. JBJS (A) 1981; 63: 536-5349) Marmor et al: CORR: 1993: 294; 147-15310) Kozinn et al. JBJS (A) 1989; 71: 145-15011) Barnes et al: Instr course lect 1993; 42: 309-31412) White at al. JBJS(B); 1991; 73 582-586.
ReferencesReferences13) Sharpe et al :Knee 2001; 8: 213- 1814) Berger et al : CORR 1999: 367: 50-6015) Squire et al : CORR 1999: 367: 61-7216) Ohden et al: J. Arth.: 2001: 16; 196- 20017) Ansari et al: AAOS ; Atlanta 199618) Gunther et al : Knee 1996; 3; 33-3919) Ecker et al: J AAOS: 1994, 2: 173-7820) Weale et al : CORR; 1994; 302: 134-3721) Stuckenberg-Colsman et al : Knee 2001; 8: 187-19422) Rees et al; Orthop rev:1988; 17; 983-98823) Price et al: J. Arth: 16; 970-976.24) Ivarsson et al: CORR 1992: 279; 194-20025) Lindstrand et al: Acta orthop scand: 1992; 63: 256-
259.
ReferencesReferences26) Romanowski et al :AAOS; Dallas; 200227) McAuley et al: CORR 2001; 392: 279-28228) Bartel et al: CORR 1995; 317: 76-8229) Hyldahl et al: J. Arth 2001; 16: 174-17930) Dennis et al: JBJS (A); 2002; 83 (supple 2): 1104-
110531) Coventry: JBJS (A) 1973; 55: 23-4832) Jackson et al: JBJS(B) 1974: 56: 23633) Berman et al: CORR 1991; 272: 19234) Coventry et al: JBJS (A)1993; 75 (2): 196-20135) Aglietta et al: CORR 198736) Chao et al: Iowa orthop J.: 1995: 154-15837) Rudan et al: CORR 1991: 268:15738) Ritter et al: J. Arth :88: 3; 147: 309-311.
ReferencesReferences39) Wagner et al : Orthopade 1989: 118; 637-4640) Naudie et al: CORR 1999: 367 (3-8): 445-44941) Sprenger et al: CORR 1979:140: 103-10842) Broughton et al: JBJS 68B:447; 198643) Haddad et al: J. Arth: 2000 Aug; 15(5): 597-60344) Katz et al: CORR Apr 229: 1988; 193-6045) Meding et al: JBJS (A):2000 Sep; 82 (9); 1252-125946) Aglietti et al: J knee Surg: 2003 Jan; 16(1): 21-647) Jackson et al: J. Arth: 1994 Oct; 9(5); 539-54248) Sprenger et al: JBJS (A) May 2003: 85; 469-47449) Karabatsos et al: Can J Surg.: 2002 Apr. 45(2): 116-
950) Ritter et al: JBJS 2000: 82; 125251) Madan et al: Bull hosp. Jt. Dis.: 2002-2003, 61(1-2);
5-10