Aims

The aim of this study was to determine the risk of tibial eminence avulsion intraoperatively for bi-unicondylar knee arthroplasty (Bi-UKA), with consideration of the effect of implant positioning, overstuffing, and sex, compared to the risk for isolated medial unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA-M) and bicruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty (BCR-TKA).

Combined Partial Knee Arthroplasty (CPKA) is a promising alternative to Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) for the treatment of multi-compartment arthrosis. Through the simultaneous or staged implantation of multiple Partial Knee Arthroplasties (PKAs), CPKA aims to restore near-normal function of the knee, through retention of the anterior cruciate ligament and native disease-free compartment. Whilst PKA is well established, CPKA is comparatively novel and associated biomechanics are less well understood. Clinically, PKA and CPKA have been shown to better restore knee function compared to TKA, particularly during fast walking. The biomechanical explanation for this superiority remains unclear but may be due to better preservation of the extensor mechanism. This study sought to assess and compare extensor function after PKA, CPKA, and TKA. An instrumented knee extension rig facilitated the measurement extension moment of twenty-four cadaveric knees, which were measured in the native state and then following a sequence of arthroplasty procedures. Eight knees underwent medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty (UKA-M), followed by patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) thereby converting to medial Bicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty (BCA-M). In the final round of testing the PKA implants were removed a posterior-cruciate retaining TKA was implanted. The second eight received lateral equivalents (UKA-L then BCA-L) then TKA. The final eight underwent simultaneous Bi-Unicondylar Arthroplasty (Bi-UKA) before TKA. Extensor efficiencies over extension ranges typical of daily tasks were also calculated and differences between arthroplasties were assessed using repeated measures analysis of variance. For both the medial and lateral groups, UKA demonstrated the same extensor function as the native knee. BCA resulted in a small reduction in extensor moment between 70–90° flexion but, in the context of daily activity, extensor efficiency was largely unaffected and no significant reductions were found. TKA, however, resulted in significantly reduced extensor moments, leading to efficiency deficits ranging from 8% to 43% in flexion ranges associated with downhill walking and the stance phase of gait, respectively. Comparing the arthroplasties: TKA was significantly less efficient than both UKA-M and BCA-M over ranges representing stair ascent and gait; TKA showed a significant 23% reduction compared to BCA-L in the same range. There were no differences in efficiency between the UKAs and BCAs over any flexion range and TKA efficiency was consistently lower than all other arthroplasties. Bi-UKA generated the same extensor moment as native knee at flexion angles typical of fast gait (0–30°). Again, TKA displayed significantly reduced extensor moments towards full extension but returned to the normal range in deep flexion. Overall, TKA was significantly less efficient following TKA than Bi-UKA. Recipients of PKA and CPKA have superior functional outcomes compared to TKA, particularly in relation to fast walking. This in vitro study found that both UKA and CPKA better preserve extensor function compared to TKA, especially when evaluated in the context of daily functional tasks. TKA reduced knee extensor efficiency by over 40% at flexion angles associated with gait, arguably the most important activity to maintain patient satisfaction. These findings go some way to explaining functional deficiencies of TKA compared to CPKA observed clinically

Aims

There has been a recent resurgence in interest in combined partial knee arthroplasty (PKA) as an alternative to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The varied terminology used to describe these procedures leads to confusion and ambiguity in communication between surgeons, allied health professionals, and patients. A standardized classification system is required for patient safety, accurate clinical record-keeping, clear communication, correct coding for appropriate remuneration, and joint registry data collection.