Unicompartmental compared with total knee replacement for patients with multimorbidities: a cohort study using propensity score stratification and inverse probability weighting

Background Although routine NHS data potentially include all patients, confounding limits their use for causal inference. Methods to minimise confounding in observational studies of implantable devices are required to enable the evaluation of patients with severe systemic morbidity who are excluded from many randomised controlled trials. Objectives Stage 1 – replicate the Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial (TOPKAT), a surgical randomised controlled trial comparing unicompartmental knee replacement with total knee replacement using propensity score and instrumental variable methods. Stage 2 – compare the risk benefits and cost-effectiveness of unicompartmental knee replacement with total knee replacement surgery in patients with severe systemic morbidity who would have been ineligible for TOPKAT using the validated methods from stage 1. Design This was a cohort study. Setting Data were obtained from the National Joint Registry database and linked to hospital inpatient (Hospital Episode Statistics) and patient-reported outcome data. Participants Stage 1 – people undergoing unicompartmental knee replacement surgery or total knee replacement surgery who met the TOPKAT eligibility criteria. Stage 2 – participants with an American Society of Anesthesiologists grade of ≥ 3. Intervention The patients were exposed to either unicompartmental knee replacement surgery or total knee replacement surgery. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was the postoperative Oxford Knee Score. The secondary outcome measures were 90-day postoperative complications (venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction and prosthetic joint infection) and 5-year revision risk and mortality. The main outcome measures for the health economic analysis were health-related quality of life (EuroQol-5 Dimensions) and NHS hospital costs. Results In stage 1, propensity score stratification and inverse probability weighting replicated the results of TOPKAT. Propensity score adjustment, propensity score matching and instrumental variables did not. Stage 2 included 2256 unicompartmental knee replacement patients and 57,682 total knee replacement patients who had severe comorbidities, of whom 145 and 23,344 had linked Oxford Knee Scores, respectively. A statistically significant but clinically irrelevant difference favouring unicompartmental knee replacement was observed, with a mean postoperative Oxford Knee Score difference of < 2 points using propensity score stratification; no significant difference was observed using inverse probability weighting. Unicompartmental knee replacement more than halved the risk of venous thromboembolism [relative risk 0.33 (95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.74) using propensity score stratification; relative risk 0.39 (95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.96) using inverse probability weighting]. Unicompartmental knee replacement was not associated with myocardial infarction or prosthetic joint infection using either method. In the long term, unicompartmental knee replacement had double the revision risk of total knee replacement [hazard ratio 2.70 (95% confidence interval 2.15 to 3.38) using propensity score stratification; hazard ratio 2.60 (95% confidence interval 1.94 to 3.47) using inverse probability weighting], but half of the mortality [hazard ratio 0.52 (95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.74) using propensity score stratification; insignificant effect using inverse probability weighting]. Unicompartmental knee replacement had lower costs and higher quality-adjusted life-year gains than total knee replacement for stage 2 participants. Limitations Although some propensity score methods successfully replicated TOPKAT, unresolved confounding may have affected stage 2. Missing Oxford Knee Scores may have led to information bias. Conclusions Propensity score stratification and inverse probability weighting successfully replicated TOPKAT, implying that some (but not all) propensity score methods can be used to evaluate surgical innovations and implantable medical devices using routine NHS data. Unicompartmental knee replacement was safer and more cost-effective than total knee replacement for patients with severe comorbidity and should be considered the first option for suitable patients. Future work Further research is required to understand the performance of propensity score methods for evaluating surgical innovations and implantable devices. Trial registration This trial is registered as EUPAS17435. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The Oxford Domed Lateral Unicompartmental Knee Replacement implant: Increasing wall height reduces the risk of bearing dislocation

Due to lateral ligament laxity, bearing dislocation occurs in 1%–6% of Oxford Domed Lateral replacements. Most dislocations are medial but they do rarely occur anteriorly or posteriorly. The aim was to decrease the risk of dislocation. For a bearing to dislocate the femoral component has to be distracted from the tibial component. A robotic-path-planning-algorithm was used with a computer model of the implant in different configurations to determine the Vertical Distraction needed for Dislocation (VDD). With current components, VDD anteriorly/posteriorly was 5.5 to 6.5 mm and medially was 3.5 to 5.75 mm. A thicker bearing increased VDD medially and decreased VDD anteriorly/posteriorly (0.1 mm/1 mm thickness increase). VDD medially increased with the bearing closer to the tibial wall (0.5 mm/1 mm closer), or by increasing the tibial wall height (1 mm/1 mm height increase). VDD anteriorly/posteriorly was not influenced by bearing position or wall height. To prevent collision between the femoral and tibial components an increase in wall height must be accompanied by a similar increase in minimum bearing thickness. Increasing the wall height and minimum bearing thickness by 2 mm and ensuring the bearing is 4 mm or less from the wall increased the minimum VDD medially to 5.5 mm. The lower VDD medially than anteriorly/posteriorly explains why medial dislocation is more common. If the wall height is increased by 2 mm, the minimum bearing thickness is 5 mm and the surgeon ensured the bearing is 4 mm or less from the wall, the medial dislocation rate should be similar to the anterior/posterior dislocation rate, which should be acceptable.

Unicompartmental Knee Replacement in Obese Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Thanks to modern surgical techniques and implants, traditional exclusion criteria for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) are no longer considered contraindications. The aim of this study is to clarify the impact of obesity on functional outcomes and revision rates of UKA. We performed a comprehensive systematic review using PubMed–Medline, Google Scholar and Cochrane Central. Then, we extracted data related to body mass index (BMI), age and follow-up, functional outcome scores and rate of revisions (all-cause, aseptic and septic). Patients were stratified according to BMI into two groups: non-obese (BMI < 30) and obese (BMI ≥ 30). We identified 22 eligible studies, of which 13 were included in the meta-analysis. Patients with a BMI > 30 had a significantly higher likelihood for revision (p = 0.02), while the risk of septic revision was similar (p = 0.79). The clinical outcome measures showed a significant difference in favor of patients with a BMI < 30 (p < 0.0001). The improvements in Oxford Knee Score and Knee Society Score were significant in both obese and non-obese patients, although the latter showed inferior results. The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis show that BMI is not a contraindication to UKA. However, obese patients have a higher risk for aseptic failure and lower improvement in clinical scores compared to non-obese patients.

589 Early Results of Single Anaesthetic Bilateral Fixed Bearing Cemented Medial Unicompartmental Knee Replacement

Introduction Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) results in less morbidity, early mobilisation, and better PROMs in appropriately selected patients. There has been a steady increase in the number of fixed bearing UKRs in the NJR. We present the early results of single anaesthetic bilateral fixed bearing cemented medial UKR. Method All patients undergoing bilateral UKR using the ZUK prosthesis (LIMA, UK) under a single anaesthetic between March 2013 and March 2019 were included in this study. Demographic data, surgical data, change in haemoglobin after surgery and occurrence of complications were prospectively recorded in the hospital database. Pre-op and follow-up Oxford knee scores were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 25.0 (IBM, USA) and paired t-test was used to analyse improvement in functional score. Results Nine patients were included in this study. The mean age was 53.2years (range 43-71 years). There were 2 females and 7 males. A significant improvement in Oxford knee score from a mean of 37.2 to 53.6(p &lt; 0.01) was seen. The mean drop in Hb was 4.1mg/dl. The mean follow up was 28 months (range 12-76 months). Conclusions There was good improvement in functional scores without any significant drop in Hb. Therefore, it is a safe and beneficial procedure.