Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Age and Body Mass Index Has No Adverse Effect on Clinical Outcome of Unicompartmental Knee Replacement - Midterm Followup Study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is well-established procedure for the anteromedial compartment of knee arthritis with intact anterior cruciate ligament. The significance of age and body mass index (BMI) is not clear in the outcomes of UKR. Our hypothesis was that age and BMI does not affect the clinical and functional outcome following fixed bearing UKR.

Materials and Methods

The study cohort of 148 was selected after stringent inclusion criteria and average followup was 5.6 years (range 2–10 years). The fixed bearing Miller Galante UKR procedure was carried out on all patients.

Results

In the study cohort of 175, the average age of the cohort was 61.7 years. The sample size aged ≤55 years and aged ≥55 years was 38 and 137, respectively. The mean BMI of the cohort was 29.2 kg/m2 (range: 21–38 kg/m2). The sample size of BMI ≤30 kg/m2 and BMI ≥30 kg/m2 was 117 and 58, respectively. In the cohort group, BMI ≤30 kg/m2 and BMI ≥30 kg/m2, there was no statistically significant difference in the Knee Society Score clinical scores, functional scores, and knee range of motion scores, (P > 0.05). This study infers no statistically significant difference in the clinical and functional outcome between age group ≤55 years and age ≥55 years, (P > 0.05). The failure rates of the group of BMI ≤30 kg/m2 and BMI ≥30 kg/m2 were 4.27% (5 knees) 3.44% (2 knees), respectively. The failure rates in the age group ≤55 years and group ≥55 years were 2 knees (3.44%) and 5 knees (4.27%), respectively.

Conclusion

This study confirms that age and BMI does not influence the functional outcome and clinical outcome following fixed bearing UKR.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fisher N, Agarwal M, Reuben SF, Johnson DS, Turner PG. Sporting and physical activity following Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee 2006;13:296–300.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Price AJ, Waite JC, Svard U. Long term clinical results of the medial Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005;435:171–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bedson J, Jordan K, Croft P. The prevalence and history of knee osteoarthritis in general practice: A case-control study. Fam Pract 2005;22:103–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Murray DW, Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ. The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: A ten-year survival study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998;80:983–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bert JM. Unicompartmental knee replacement. Orthop Clin North Am 2005;36:513–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Laurencin CT, Zelicof SB, Scott RD, Ewald FC. Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in the same patient. A comparative study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1991;273:151–6.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ahlbäck S. Osteoarthrosis of the knee. A radiographic investigation. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh) 1968;Suppl 277:7–72.

  8. Kozinn SC, Scott R. Unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1989;71:145–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bremner-Smith AT, Ewings P, Weale AE. Knee scores in a ‘normal’ elderly population. Knee 2004;11:279–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Lidgren L, Knutson K, Robertson O. Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register 2004 Annual Report. Nov 2004.

  11. Heck DA, Marmor L, Gibson A, Rougraff BT. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. A multicenter investigation with long term followup evaluation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1993;286:154–9.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Tabor OB Jr., Tabor OB, Bernard M, Wan JY. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Long term success in middle-age and obese patients. J Surg Orthop Adv 2005;14:59–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kuipers BM, Kollen BJ, Bots PC, Burger BJ, van Raay JJ, Tulp NJ, et al. Factors associated with reduced early survival in the Oxford phase III medial unicompartment knee replacement. Knee 2010;17:48–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bonutti PM, Goddard MS, Zywiel MG, Khanuja HS, Johnson AJ, Mont MA, et al. Outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty stratified by body mass index. J Arthroplasty 2011;26:1149–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Parratte SJ, Argenson JN, Pearce O, Pauly V, Auquier P, Aubaniac JM. Medial unicompartmental knee replacement in the under-50s. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009;91;351–6.

  16. Pennington DW, Swienckowski JJ, Lutes WB, Drake GN. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients sixty years of age or younger. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;85-A: 1968–73.

  17. Price AJ, Dodd CA, Svard UG, Murray DW. Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients younger and older than 60 years of age. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005;87:1488–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr., Mallory TH, Adams JB, Groseth KL. Early failure of minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is associated with obesity. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005;440:60–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Foran JR, Mont MA, Rajadhyaksha AD, Jones LC, Etienne G, Hungerford DS, et al. Total knee arthroplasty in obese patients: A comparison with a matched control group. J Arthroplasty 2004;19:817–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Voss F, Sheinkop MB, Galante JO, Barden RM, Rosenberg AG. Miller-galante unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at 2- to 5-year followup evaluations. J Arthroplasty 1995;10:764–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Cavaignac E, Lafontan V, Reina N, Pailhé R, Warmy M, Laffosse JM, et al. Obesity has no adverse effect on the outcome of unicompartmental knee replacement at a minimum followup of seven years. Bone Joint J 2013;95:1064–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaeics, University Hospital of NorthTees and Hartlepool, Stockton On Tees, UK

    Shanmuga S. Maheswaran

  2. Department of Orthopaedics, Basildon and Thurrock University Hospital, SS165NL, Essex, UK

    Hemanth Kumar Venkatesh

Authors
  1. Hemanth Kumar Venkatesh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shanmuga S. Maheswaran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hemanth Kumar Venkatesh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Venkatesh, H.K., Maheswaran, S.S. Age and Body Mass Index Has No Adverse Effect on Clinical Outcome of Unicompartmental Knee Replacement - Midterm Followup Study. JOIO 53, 442–445 (2019). https://doi.org/10.4103/ortho.IJOrtho_230_18

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/ortho.IJOrtho_230_18

Keywords

Search

Navigation