Skip to main content
Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics
Download PDF
  • Original Paper
  • Open access
  • Published:

No difference in Oxford Knee Score between medial and lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty after two years of follow-up: a clinical trial

Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics volume 10, Article number: 134 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

In patients with monocompartmental knee osteoarthritis, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) can be performed. This study compared the medial versus lateral UKA in patients with monocompartimental knee arthroplasty. It was hypothesised that both implants achieve a similar outcome in OKS.

Methods

The UKAs were fixed-bearing medial PPK (Zimmer-Biomet, Warsaw, Indiana, USA) and fixed-bearing lateral Zuk (Lima Corporate, Udine, Italy). An intraarticular drain was placed and removed on the first postoperative day. Enoxaparin sodium 4000 units subcutaneously daily for 45 days was used as thromboembolic prophylaxis. The Italian version of the OKS was used for the clinical assessment. The following complications were also recorded: anterior knee pain, infection and revision surgeries.

Results

Data from 203 patients were collected. The mean age of the patients was 68.9 ± 6.7 years and the mean BMI was 28.1 ± 4.1 kg/m2. The mean OKS on admission was 22.1 ± 4.5 points. On admission, women, patients older than 70 years, and those with a BMI lower than 28 kg/m2 who underwent lateral UKA evidenced lower OKS. At the last follow-up, 26.7 and 26.9 months for the lateral and medial UKA, respectively, no between groups difference in OKS was evidenced. No patients experienced complications.

Conclusion

Medial and lateral UKA achieve similar outcomes in OKS at a minimum of two years of follow-up.

Introduction

Osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee is common [39, 57]. Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is considered the gold standard treatment for end-stage OA of the knee [34,35,36, 44, 45]. The prevalence of isolated lateral and medial compartment OA is about 7.5% and 25%, respectively [37, 46, 48]. In 1989, Kozinn and Scott highlighted the indications for UKA: stable anterior cruciate ligament, varus deformity lower than 5°, range of motion greater than 90° without flexion contracture, and body mass index (BMI) lower than 30 kg/m2 [25]. However, these indications are often considered obsolete [1, 30]. In contrast to TKA, UKA spares the cruciate ligaments and all structures of the contralateral joint compartment [13, 38, 53]. In the last decades, these indications have become outdated, and UKA has been performed in unconventional settings. Indeed, anterior cruciate deficiency and patellar osteoarthritis represent no absolute contraindication [17, 20, 21, 50]. Compared to TKA, UKA is associated with lower intraoperative blood loss, faster recovery, better functional outcomes, and a greater postoperative range of motion [19, 23, 27, 28, 31, 41, 47]. However, approximately 20% of UKA patients undergo revision arthroplasty to TKA [49, 51]. The medial UKA is more commonly performed than the lateral UKA, and in total arthroplasty, a medial parapatellar approach is the standard surgical access. This could negatively impact surgery on the lateral side, which might also necessitate a longer learning curve. Previous studies which compared medial versus lateral UKA found no difference in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) [2, 18, 29, 32, 37, 40, 52, 58]. To the best of our knowledge, clinical investigations which compared the outcomes of medial versus lateral UKA in Oxford Knee Score (OKS) are missing. Being the OKS one of the most used PROM for clinical assessment, it is important to investigate whether medial and lateral UKA could exert a difference on it. Therefore, a clinical trial was conducted. The outcomes of interest were to compare the Oxford Knee Score and the rate of complications between the two implants. It was hypothesised that both implants achieve a similar outcome in OKS.

Methods

Study protocol

The present study was conducted following the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement [9]. All procedures were conducted in accordance with the standards highlighted in the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments. Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants. The present study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the San Raffaele University Hospital of Milan, Italy (CE 236/2017).

Eligibility criteria

The inclusion criteria were: isolated monocompartmental symptomatic OA stage III to IV according to the Kellgren-Lawrence classification [24], anterior cruciate, medial and lateral collateral ligaments functionally intact, as confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and clinical examination, a range of motion (ROM) of at least 90°, patients able to understand the nature of the study. The exclusion criteria were: previous surgery (except arthroscopic meniscectomy), lower limb axial deformity, peripheric neuropathy or severe arterial disease or presence of ulcers, and any uncontrolled acute blood abnormalities.

Surgical procedures and rehabilitation

Surgery was performed by one author in a highly standardized fashion at the CASCO Department of the IRCCS Ospedale Galeazzi Sant’Ambrogio, Milan, Italy between September 2018 and January 2021. The implants were fixed-bearing medial PPK (Zimmer-Biomet, Warsaw, Indiana, USA) and fixed-bearing lateral Zuk (Lima Corporate, Udine, Italy). All patients were placed in a supine position on a standard operating table under spinal study. A standard medial or lateral parapatellar approach was used. Inspection of the patellofemoral and medial/lateral compartments was performed. All components were cemented using Refobacin Bone Cement R (Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, Indiana, USA). An intraarticular drain was placed and removed on the first postoperative day. Enoxaparin sodium 4000 units subcutaneously daily for 45 days was used as thromboembolic prophylaxis. The postoperative protocol was conducted following a previous report [12]. Briefly, both the patient groups followed the same study protocol involving passive mobilisation from day one after the surgery. From day two, they started an active progressive mobilisation of the joint and assisted walking with two crutches. According to each patient’s capability, a gradual increase in the load during walking was recommended, continuing with isometric muscle toning exercises until the total abandonment of walking aids.

Clinical assessment

The clinical assessment was conducted by two independent clinicians who were not involved in the clinical management of patients. The Italian version of the OKS was used for the clinical assessment [43]. The OKS is a simple patient-reported outcome measure based on a 12-question Likert-like on function, activities of daily living, and pain over the preceding four weeks and demonstrated validity and simple administration [11, 14, 33, 42]. Each question has four possible answers. The final result ranges from 0 (poorest function) to 48 (maximal function). The following complications were also recorded: anterior knee pain, infection and revision surgeries.

Power analysis

An estimated sample of 71 subjects for each group was required to compare OKS between medial and lateral UKA position with a two-sided Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test, given an index mean difference of 5, a standard deviation of 8 for both groups, a 5% alpha, an 95% power. This sample had also a 99% power to detect a difference between pre- and post-operative values with a one-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test, assuming a mean difference of 5, a standard deviation of 8 for both groups, and a 2.5% alpha. Additional subjects were recruited to ensure statistical significance in case of adverse events.

Statistical analysis

The statistical analyses were conducted by the main study (F.M.) using the software IBM SPSS version 25. For continuous variables, the mean and standard deviation were used. For the comparisons, the mean difference (MD) effect measure and standard error (SE) were adopted. A 95% confidence interval was set as a standard. The unpaired two-tailed t-test was used, with values of P > 0.05 considered statistically significant.

Results

Patient recruitment

Initially, 228 patients were recruited. Of them, five patients (n = 3 anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, n = 2 tibial osteotomy) were excluded as they have undergone previous surgery on the knee. A further five patients declined to participate. A total of 223 patients underwent surgery. Of them, 15 patients were lost at follow-up. This left 203 patients for study: 119 patients were included in the medial UKA and 84 in the lateral cohort (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

STROBE flow chart

Full size image

Patient demographic

The mean age of the patients was 68.9 ± 6.7 years and the mean BMI was 28.1 ± 4.1 kg/m2. The mean OKS on admission was 22.1 ± 4.5 points. The lateral group showed greater OKS on admission; comparability was found in mean age and BMI, ratio women:men, and length of the follow-up (Table 1).

Table 1 Demographic data and baseline comparability
Full size table

Results syntheses

At the last follow-up, no between groups difference was evidenced in OKS (Table 2). No patients experienced complications.

Table 2 Results of OKS at the last follow-up
Full size table

Subgroup analysis

On admission, women, patients older than 70 years, and those with BMI lower than 28 kg/m2 who underwent lateral UKA evidenced lower OKS. At the last follow-up, no between groups difference was evidenced in all subgroups in OKS (Table 2).

Discussion

The results of the present study confirmed our hypothesis that medial and lateral UKA achieve similar OKS at a minimum of two years of follow-up.

Both implants were associated with an improvement in the OKS. The OKS at baseline was greater in patients who have undergone lateral UKA. In addition, the medial group evidenced greater OKA in the subgroups women, age greater than 70 years, and BMI greater than 28 kg/m2 at baseline. Despite these differences, the same endpoints evidenced similar OKS at the last follow-up indicating that UKA improved OKS irrespective of the side, or minimal differences in sex, age, and BMI pre-operatively (Table 3).

Table 3 Subgroup analyses
Full size table

To the best of our knowledge, a formal minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the OKS in UKA has not been established. According to previous studies on primary or revision TKA, the MCID of the OKS was 5% [8, 22]. Considering our results, the OKS of both groups improved more than 20% at the last follow-up, which is well beyond its MCID. Previous studies found similar improvements in the OKS. Baur et al. [4] reported a median improvement of the OKS of 43% at approximately three years of follow-up. Baryeh et al. [3] reported a median OKS of 43 on 898 patients who underwent UKA at two years of follow-up. These results are supported also by a recent meta-analysis of 47 studies (2,651 patients) on lateral UKA reporting a mean improvement of the OKS of 17.5% (range, 12.7 to 25.7) [6]. Similar findings were evidenced in another systematic review of four studies (n = 3,417) at a mean of 10 years of follow-up [40] and comparing the OKS in robotic-assisted and manual UKA [15].

Given the higher rate of medial osteoarthritis, lateral UKAs are less commonly performed. Indeed, medial UKAs are performed approximately ten times more frequently than lateral UKAs. Compared to the medial UKA, there is a paucity of evidence on lateral UKA in the current literature. Differences in anatomy and biomechanics between the two compartments should be considered. Given the convexity of the lateral tibial plateau and the C-shaped lateral meniscus, the lateral compartment has greater mobility [55]. Additionally, the screw-home mechanism and femoral rollback are also more pronounced at the lateral side [26, 55]. This tendency was also evident in the first mobile-bearing UKA implants, where the flat tibial component laterally increased the likelihood of bearing dislocation [7]. Given the higher complexity of lateral compartment biomechanics and the paucity of studies examining lateral UKAs designs and positioning, medial implants have historically been thought to be at a lesser risk of failure [16].

At a minimum follow-up of five years, no difference in medial and lateral UKA in the revision rate and implant survivorship was observed in 223 patients [18]. We could not identify previous studies that have compared medial and lateral UKA in OKS. Previous authors referred to the Knee Society Score (KSS), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), 12-Item Short Form (SF-12), and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC). Despite the different PROMs used, there was consensus that medial and lateral UKA achieved similar clinical and functional outcomes at short- to midterm follow-up [2, 18, 29, 32, 37, 40, 52, 58].

The evidence on lateral fixed-bearing Zuk (Lima Corporate, Udine, Italy) implants is limited. For the medial component, fixed-bearing medial PPK (Zimmer-Biomet, Warsaw, Indiana, USA) was used. This implant has been already evaluated in a previous clinical trial of the same group, with similar improvement in the OKS at a 3-year follow-up [10]. The same implant was used in another study on 460 patients [56]. Similar to the present study, at approximately five years of follow-up, the mean OKS was 43.3 [56].

UKA restores the joint line to its native level and recreates the natural slope [56]. Medial and lateral OA patterns are different, although they are characterised by the same degeneration process. During the motion, there are higher degrees of translation and rotation of the lateral femoral condyle on the lateral tibia, which increases pain during the flexion in the lateral compartment [5, 46]. On the contrary, in the medial compartment, the middle and anterior aspects of articular cartilage are most commonly degenerated, which causes pain during extension [54].

All operations have been performed by a single surgeon well beyond the learning curve in a single centre; therefore, the number of procedures studied is limited. By definition, this study cannot be randomised, as we compared different aetiologies and surgical indications. The risk of performance bias was high since patients were unblinded to the procedure. Blinding in elective orthopaedic surgery is difficult to conduct. Future investigations are required to establish whether medial and lateral UKA have different survivorship or progression of osteoarthritis progression patterns. Data on weight-bearing radiographs of the lower limb were not prospectively collected. These data could give information on the biomechanical axes of the lower leg, and open new insights on the comparison of medial and lateral UKA.

Conclusion

Medial and lateral UKA achieve similar outcomes in OKS at a minimum of two years of follow-up.

Availability of data and materials

All data and materials are available on reasonable request to Dr. Riccardo D’Ambrosi (riccardo.dambrosi@hotmail.it).

Abbreviations

TKA:

Total knee arthroplasty

UKA:

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

BMI:

Body mass index

OKS:

Oxford Knee Score

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

ROM:

Range of motion

KSS:

Knee Society Score

FJS:

Forgotten Joint Score

KOOS:

Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score

SF-12:

12-Item Short Form

WOMAC:

Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index

STROBE:

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology

References

  1. Archibeck MJ, White RE Jr (2004) What’s new in adult reconstructive knee surgery. JBJS 86:1839–1849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Arirachakaran A, Choowit P, Putananon C, Muangsiri S, Kongtharvonskul J (2015) Is unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) superior to total knee arthroplasty (TKA)? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 25:799–806

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Baryeh K, Maillot C, Gummaraju A, Riviere C (2021) Disappointing Relationship between Functional Performance and Patient Satisfaction of UKA Patients: A Cross Sectional Study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 107:102865

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Baur J, Zwicky L, Hirschmann MT, Ilchmann T, Clauss M (2015) Metal backed fixed-bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasties using minimal invasive surgery: a promising outcome analysis of 132 cases. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 16:177

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Berend KR, Kolczun MC 2nd, George JW Jr, Lombardi AV Jr (2012) Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty through a lateral parapatellar approach has high early survivorship. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:77–83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bonanzinga T, Tanzi P, Altomare D, Dorotei A, Iacono F, Marcacci M (2021) High survivorship rate and good clinical outcomes at mid-term follow-up for lateral UKA: a systematic literature review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 29:3262–3271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Buzin SD, Geller JA, Yoon RS, Macaulay W (2021) Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: A review. World J Orthop 12:197–206

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Clement ND, MacDonald D, Simpson AH (2016) Erratum to: The minimal clinically important difference in the Oxford knee score and Short Form 12 score after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24:3696

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cuschieri S (2019) The STROBE guidelines. Saudi J Anaesth 13:S31–S34

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. D'Ambrosi R, Valli F, Nuara A, Mariani I, Di Feo F, Ursino N, et al. (2023) No difference in mobile and fixed bearing partial knee arthroplasty in octogenarians: a clinical trial. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-023-03537-71-8

  11. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A (1998) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:63–69

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. De Berardinis L, Senarighi M, Ciccullo C, Forte F, Spezia M, Gigante AP (2022) Fast-track surgery and telerehabilitation protocol in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty leads to superior outcomes when compared with the standard protocol: a propensity-matched pilot study. Knee Surg Relat Res 34:44

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Fiocchi A, Condello V, Madonna V, Bonomo M, Zorzi C (2017) Medial vs lateral unicompartmental knee arthrroplasty: clinical results. Acta Biomed 88:38–44

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Garratt AM, Brealey S, Gillespie WJ (2004) Patient-assessed health instruments for the knee: a structured review. Rheumatology (Oxford) 43:1414–1423

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gilmour A, MacLean AD, Rowe PJ, Banger MS, Donnelly I, Jones BG et al (2018) Robotic-Arm-Assisted vs Conventional Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. The 2-Year Clinical Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Trial. J Arthroplasty 33:S109–S115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Han SB, Lee SS, Kim KH, Im JT, Park PS, Shin YS (2020) Survival of medial versus lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 15:e0228150

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Heyse TJ, Khefacha A, Cartier P (2010) UKA in combination with PFR at average 12-year follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 130:1227–1230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Heyse TJ, Khefacha A, Peersman G, Cartier P (2012) Survivorship of UKA in the middle-aged. Knee 19:585–591

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Isaac SM, Barker KL, Danial IN, Beard DJ, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2007) Does arthroplasty type influence knee joint proprioception? A longitudinal prospective study comparing total and unicompartmental arthroplasty. Knee 14:212–217

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Johal S, Nakano N, Baxter M, Hujazi I, Pandit H, Khanduja V (2018) Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: The Past, Current Controversies, and Future Perspectives. J Knee Surg 31:992–998

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kang SN, Smith TO, Sprenger De Rover WB, Walton NP (2011) Pre-operative patellofemoral degenerative changes do not affect the outcome after medial Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement: a report from an independent centre. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93:476–478

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Khow YZ, Liow MHL, Goh GS, Chen JY, Lo NN, Yeo SJ (2021) The oxford knee score minimal clinically important difference for revision total knee arthroplasty. Knee 32:211–217

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kim KT (2018) Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res 30:1–2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Kohn MD, Sassoon AA, Fernando ND (2016) Classifications in Brief: Kellgren-Lawrence Classification of Osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 474:1886–1893

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Kozinn SC, Scott R (1989) Unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 71:145–150

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kumar D, Manal KT, Rudolph KS (2013) Knee joint loading during gait in healthy controls and individuals with knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 21:298–305

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Laurencin CT, Zelicof SB, Scott RD, Ewald FC (1991) Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in the same patient. A comparative study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 273:151–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Liddle AD, Judge A, Pandit H, Murray DW (2014) Adverse outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee replacement in 101,330 matched patients: a study of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet 384:1437–1445

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Liebs TR, Herzberg W (2013) Better quality of life after medial versus lateral unicondylar knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:2629–2640

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Lombardi AV Jr, Berend KR, Berend ME, Della Valle CJ, Engh GA, Fitz W et al (2012) Current controversies in partial knee arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect 61:347–381

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lombardi AV Jr, Berend KR, Walter CA, Aziz-Jacobo J, Cheney NA (2009) Is recovery faster for mobile-bearing unicompartmental than total knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:1450–1457

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Marson B, Prasad N, Jenkins R, Lewis M (2014) Lateral unicompartmental knee replacements: early results from a District General Hospital. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 24:987–991

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Medalla GA, Moonot P, Peel T, Kalairajah Y, Field RE (2009) Cost-benefit comparison of the Oxford Knee score and the American Knee Society score in measuring outcome of total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 24:652–656

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Migliorini F, Aretini P, Driessen A, El Mansy Y, Quack V, Tingart M et al (2020) Better outcomes after mini-subvastus approach for primary total knee arthroplasty: a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 30:979–992

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Migliorini F, Aretini P, Driessen A, El Mansy Y, Quack V, Tingart M et al (2021) Correction to: Better outcomes after mini-subvastus approach for primary total knee arthroplasty: a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 31:1259

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Migliorini F, Eschweiler J, Baroncini A, Tingart M, Maffulli N (2021) Better outcomes after minimally invasive surgeries compared to the standard invasive medial parapatellar approach for total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 29:3608–3620

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Migliorini F, Maffulli N, Cuozzo F, Elsner K, Hildebrand F, Eschweiler J et al (2022) Mobile bearing versus fixed bearing for unicompartmental arthroplasty in monocompartmental osteoarthritis of the knee: a meta-analysis. J Clin Med 11(10):2837

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Migliorini F, Tingart M, Niewiera M, Rath B, Eschweiler J (2019) Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty for knee osteoarthritis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 29:947–955

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Millennium WSGotBoMCatSotN, Organization WH (2003) The burden of musculoskeletal conditions at the start of the new millennium: report of a WHO Scientific Group. World Health Organization. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 919:1–218

  40. Mohammad HR, Strickland L, Hamilton TW, Murray DW (2018) Long-term outcomes of over 8,000 medial Oxford Phase 3 Unicompartmental Knees-a systematic review. Acta Orthop 89:101–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Newman J, Pydisetty RV, Ackroyd C (2009) Unicompartmental or total knee replacement: the 15-year results of a prospective randomised controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91:52–57

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Okamoto K, Ohsuka K, Shiraishi T, Hukazawa E, Wakasugi S, Furuta K (2002) Comparability of epidemiological information between self- and interviewer-administered questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 55:505–511

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Padua R, Zanoli G, Ceccarelli E, Romanini E, Bondi R, Campi A (2003) The Italian version of the Oxford 12-item Knee Questionnaire-cross-cultural adaptation and validation. Int Orthop 27:214–216

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Pinals RS (1996) Mechanisms of joint destruction, pain and disability in osteoarthritis. Drugs 52(Suppl 3):14–20

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Richmond J, Hunter D, Irrgang J, Jones MH, Snyder-Mackler L, Van Durme D et al (2010) American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons clinical practice guideline on the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92:990–993

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Sah AP, Scott RD (2008) Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty through a medial approach. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 90 Suppl 2 Pt 2:195–205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Schwab PE, Lavand’homme P, Yombi JC, Thienpont E (2015) Lower blood loss after unicompartmental than total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:3494–3500

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Scott RD (2005) Lateral unicompartmental replacement: a road less traveled. Orthopedics 28:983–984

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Stone B, Nugent M, Young SW, Frampton C, Hooper GJ (2022) The lifetime risk of revision following total knee arthroplasty: a New Zealand Joint Registry study. The Bone & Joint Journal 104:235–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Suter L, Roth A, Angst M, von Knoch F, Preiss S, List R et al (2019) Is ACL deficiency always a contraindication for medial UKA? Kinematic and kinetic analysis of implanted and contralateral knees. Gait Posture 68:244–251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Tay ML, Young SW, Frampton CM, Hooper GJ (2022) The lifetime revision risk of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 104-B:672–679

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. van der List JP, Chawla H, Villa JC, Pearle AD (2016) Different optimal alignment but equivalent functional outcomes in medial and lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee 23:987–995

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. van der List JP, McDonald LS, Pearle AD (2015) Systematic review of medial versus lateral survivorship in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee 22:454–460

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. White SH, Ludkowski PF, Goodfellow JW (1991) Anteromedial osteoarthritis of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br 73:582–586

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Wilson HA, Middleton R, Abram SGF, Smith S, Alvand A, Jackson WF et al (2019) Patient relevant outcomes of unicompartmental versus total knee replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 364:l352

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Winnock de Grave P, Barbier J, Luyckx T, Ryckaert A, Gunst P, Van den Daelen L (2018) Outcomes of a Fixed-Bearing, Medial, Cemented Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty Design: Survival Analysis and Functional Score of 460 Cases. J Arthroplasty 33:2792–2799

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Woolf AD, Pfleger B (2003) Burden of major musculoskeletal conditions. Bull World Health Organ 81:646–656

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Zambianchi F, Franceschi G, Rivi E, Banchelli F, Marcovigi A, Khabbaze C et al (2020) Clinical results and short-term survivorship of robotic-arm-assisted medial and lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 28:1551–1559

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, Trauma, and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH University Medical Centre, PauwelsstraĂźe 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany

    Filippo Migliorini

  2. Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Academic Hospital of Bolzano (SABES-ASDAA), Teaching Hospital of the Paracelsus Medical Unviersity, Bolzano, 39100, Italy

    Filippo Migliorini & Federico Cocconi

  3. Department of Ophthalmology, RWTH University Medical Centre, 52074, Aachen, Germany

    Julia Prinz

  4. CASCO Department, IRCCS Ospedale Galeazzi - Sant’Ambrogio, Milan, Italy

    Nicola Ursino & Riccardo D’Ambrosi

  5. EUORR Department, IRCCS Ospedale Galeazzi - Sant’Ambrogio, Milan, Italy

    Laura Mangiavini

  6. Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy

    Laura Mangiavini & Riccardo D’Ambrosi

Authors
  1. Filippo Migliorini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Federico Cocconi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Julia Prinz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nicola Ursino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Laura Mangiavini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Riccardo D’Ambrosi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

RDA: conceptualisation, writing, supervision, revision; FC: writing; LM: supervision; FU: supervision; JP: writing; FM: writing. All authors have agreed to the final version to be published and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Filippo Migliorini.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The present study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Milan, Italy (CE 236/2017). Signed informed consent was obtained from all participants. All the procedures involving human participants were performed in compliance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

None.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Migliorini, F., Cocconi, F., Prinz, J. et al. No difference in Oxford Knee Score between medial and lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty after two years of follow-up: a clinical trial. J EXP ORTOP 10, 134 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40634-023-00704-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40634-023-00704-x

Keywords