Oxford Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty Hybrid and Cementless Fixation: Is There Any Difference in Short-term Follow-up?

Abstract

Introduction:Despite a faster recovery, low complication rate, and good functional results, it has been reported that unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) may have high revision rates. Aseptic loosening and pain are the most common causes of UKA revision. The use of cementless and hybrid UKA has been presented as a solution to improve the fixation of prosthetic components. The main purpose of this study was to compare the early clinical outcomes and quality of fixation of cementless and hybrid UKA radiologically.Methods:A retrospective study was established with patients who received 37 cementless and 41 hybrid UKA in a minimum 2-year follow-up period. The patients’ clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Oxford knee score, EuroQol-5 dimensions, EuroQol-visual analog scale, knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score, and knee range of motion. The fixation of UKA components was evaluated with the varus-valgus angle of the tibial-femoral component, and the incidence of the radiolucent (RL) line at both the tibial and femoral componentbone interface on the radiograph.Results:There was no significant difference in any clinical outcome measurement (p>0.05). There was no significant difference between the varus-valgus and flexion-extension angles of the femoral and tibial components in both groups (p>0.05). There were significantly more tibial RL in the hybrid group than in the cementless group (p=0.025). There was no significant difference in the incidence of RL at the femoral component-bone interface (p=0.691).Conclusion:The cementless group showed significantly less tibial RL than the hybrid group in UKA. Although there were no clinically significant differences between cementless and hybrid UKAs, cementless UKA may be preferred to prevent possible prosthesis loosening.

Keywords

• uka
• unicondylar
• unicompartmental
• cementless
• hybrid