Medial unicompartmental knee replacement is a viable treatment option after failed high tibial osteotomy: a systematic review. EFORT open reviews Purpose:It is debatable whether or not previous high tibial osteotomy (HTO) has negative effects on the results of subsequent medial unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). The purpose of this study is to report, through a systematic review of the literature, the outcomes of medial UKR after failed HTO. It was hypothesized that this procedure would be safe and effective in providing satisfactory postoperative functional outcomes. Methods:A systematic review was performed by searching Pubmed/MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL. Only studies in English pertaining to all levels of evidence reporting on subjects undergoing UKR following HTO were considered. Review articles and expert opinion or editorial pieces were excluded. Outcomes of interest included indications, surgical technique and associated procedures, type of prosthesis, clinical and functional outcomes, rate of complications, revision surgery and failure rate. Results:Overall, six studies met all the inclusion criteria for this review. All were published between 2006 and 2021. The search resulted in one prospective comparative study, four retrospective comparative cohort studies, and one retrospective cohort study. Average follow-up periods ranged from 1 to 13 years. From these studies, 115 patients (117 knees) were identified. Overall, most studies reported satisfying postoperative clinical and functional outcomes. Implant survivorship ranged from 66 to 97.6%. In 15 patients, revision surgery was performed due to persistent pain. Conclusions:Medial UKR performed after failed HTO appears as a feasible procedure providing satisfying outcomes and limited complications in most cases. Further prospective comparative studies reporting long-term outcomes are needed, as high-level studies on this topic are lacking. 10.1530/EOR-21-0133

Disentangling treatment pathways for knee osteoarthritis: a study protocol for the TREATright study including a prospective cohort study, a qualitative study and a cost-effectiveness study. BMJ open INTRODUCTION:Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is associated with chronic knee pain and functional disability that negatively affect the ability to carry out normal daily activities. Patients are offered a large variety of non-surgical treatments, often not in accordance with clinical guidelines. This observational study will provide a comprehensive overview of treatment pathways for knee OA during the first 2 years after consulting an orthopaedic surgeon, including timing and order of treatment modalities, predictors of treatment outcomes, cost-effectiveness of treatment pathways and patients' views on different treatment pathways. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Patients with primary referrals to an orthopaedic surgeon due to knee OA are consecutively invited to participate and fill out a questionnaire prior to their consultation with an orthopaedic surgeon. Follow-up questionnaires will be obtained at 6 and 24 months after inclusion. Based on a prospective cohort study design, including questionnaires and register data, we will (1) describe treatment pathways for knee OA during the first 2 years after consulting an orthopaedic surgeon; (2) describe the characteristics of patients choosing different treatment pathways; (3) develop predictive models for patient-self-determined classifications of good and poor treatment outcomes; (4) evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treatment pathways that live up to clinical guidelines versus pathways that do not; based on a qualitative study design using semistructured individual interviews, we will (5) describe the patients' perspectives on treatment pathways for knee OA. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study is approved by the Danish regional ethical committee (journal number H-17017295) and the Danish Data Protection Agency (journal number AHH-2017-072). Data will be anonymised and handled in line with the General Data Protection Regulation and the Danish Data Protection Act. The study results will be submitted to international open-access peer-reviewed journals and disseminated at conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03746184, pre-results. 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048411

Clinical Outcomes of Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty after High Tibial Osteotomy and Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Orthopaedic surgery As more high tibial osteotomy (HTO) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) are performed, orthopaedic surgeons realize that more HTO and UKA failures will require revision to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in the future. To systematically evaluate the clinical outcomes of TKA after HTO and TKA after UKA, the Embase, PubMed, Ovid, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies investigating revision TKA after HTO and UKA published up to June 2021. RevMan version 5.3 was used to perform the meta-analysis. The revision TKA after HTO and revision TKA after UKA groups were compared in terms of operative time, range of motion (ROM), knee score, postoperative complications, postoperative infection, revision, and revision implants used. Nine studies were ultimately included in the meta-analysis. Results revealed that the knee score for the revision TKA after HTO group was better than that of the revision TKA after UKA group (MD 4.50 [95% CI 0.80-8.20]; p = 0.02). The revision TKA after HTO group had a lower revision rate (OR 0.65 [95% CI 0.55-0.78]; p < 0.00001) and fewer revision implants used (OR 0.11 [95% CI 0.05-0.23]; p < 0.00001). There were no statistical differences in operation time (MD -2.00 [95% CI -11.22 to 7.21]; p = 0.67), ROM (MD -0.04 [95% CI -3.69-3.61]; p = 0.98), postoperative complications (OR 1.41 [95% CI 0.77-2.60]; p = 0.27), or postoperative infections (OR 0.89 [95% CI 0.61-1.29]; p = 0.53). To conclude, the revision rate of revision TKA after UKA was greater, and more revision implants were required. It is important for orthopaedic surgeons to preserve bone during primary UKA. 10.1111/os.13311

Comparing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty and High Tibial Osteotomy for Isolated Medial Compartment Knee Osteoarthritis. JBJS reviews »:Both unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and high tibial osteotomy (HTO) allow for compartment-specific intervention on an arthritic knee joint that preserves bone stock and native soft tissue compared to a total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Both operations give a more natural feeling with native proprioception compared with a TKA. »:HTO is better suited in patients who are younger (<55 years-of-age), have a body mass index (BMI) <30 kg/m2, high activity requirements, mechanical malalignment, asymmetric varus, isolated anterior cruciate ligament insufficiency, need for multiplanar correction, and a preference for joint preserving interventions. Recent data suggest that age (>55 years-of-age) should not solely contraindicate a HTO. »:UKA may be chosen in patients who are older (>55 years-of-age), low activity requirements, have a BMI <40 kg/m2, severe osteoarthritis with significant joint space narrowing, acceptable coronal alignment, symmetric varus, and patient preference for arthroplasty. e22.00127

Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Has Lower Infection, Conversion, and Complication Rates Compared to High Tibial Osteotomy. The journal of knee surgery INTRODUCTION: Isolated medial knee osteoarthritis can be surgically treated with either unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) or high tibial osteotomy (HTO). Proponents of UKA suggest superior survivorship, while HTO offers theoretically improved alignment and joint preservation delaying total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Therefore, we compared complications in a large population of patients undergoing UKAs or HTOs. We specifically assessed 90 days, 1 year, and 2 years: (1) periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) rates, (2) conversion to TKA rates, as well as (3) complication rates. METHODS: A review of an administrative claims database was used to identify patients undergoing primary UKA ( = 13,674) or HTO ( = 1,096) from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2019. Complication rates at 90 days, 1 year, and 2 years were compared between groups using unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals. Subsequently, multivariate logistic regressions were performed for PJI and conversion to TKA rates. RESULTS: At all time points, patients who underwent UKA were associated with lower rates of infection compared with those who underwent HTOs (all OR ≤ 0.51, all ≤ 0.010). After 1 year, patients who received UKAs were found to have lower risk of requiring a conversion to a TKA versus those who received HTOs (all OR ≤ 0.55, all  < 0.001). Complications such as dislocations, periprosthetic fractures, and surgical site infections were found at lower odds in UKA compared with HTO patients. CONCLUSION: This study provides large-scale analyses demonstrating that UKA is associated with lower infection rates and fewer conversions to TKA compared with patients who have undergone HTO. Dislocations, periprosthetic fractures, and surgical site infections were also found to be lower among UKA patients. However, with careful patient selection, good results and preservation of the native knee are achieved with HTOs. Therefore, UKA versus HTO may be an important discussion to have with patients in an effort to lower the incidence of postoperative infections and complications. 10.1055/s-0042-1757597