Abstract
Introduction
At a minimum 12 years follow-up the Authors performed a matched paired study between 2 groups: Bi-Unicompartimental (femoro-tibial) versus Total Knee Replacements, both navigated, they hypothesised that Bi-UKR guarantees a clinical score and patient satisfaction at least similar to TKR without differences in survivorship.
Materials and Methods
19 BI-UKR (1999–2003) were included in the study (group A). Every single patients in group A was matched to a computer-assisted TKR implanted in the same period (group B). The clinical outcome was evaluated using the Knee Society Score, the GIUM Score and the WOMAC Arthritis Index. Radiographically the HKA angle and the Frontal Tibial Component angle (FTC) were. Statistical analysis of the results was performed and Kaplan-Meir survival rate was assessed in both the groups.
Results
No statistically significant difference was seen for the Knee Society, Functional and GIUM scores between the 2 groups. Statistically significant better WOMAC Function and Stiffness indexes were registered for the Bi-UKR group. All the TKR implants still remained positioned within 4 degrees of an ideal HKA angle of 180° and ideal FTC angle of 90° with a statistically significant better alignment compared to the Bi-UKR group. The Kaplan-Meier survival did not show any statistical significant differences in survivorship.
Discussion
At 12 years minimum follow-up there are no significant differences in survivorship and clinical score despite a worse implant alignment WOMAC function and stiffness scores are still statistically better in the Bi-UKR group.
