Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Systematic review
  • Open access
  • Published:

Better outcomes and reduced failures for arthroplasty over osteotomy for advanced compartmental knee osteoarthritis in patients older than 50 years

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research volume 15, Article number: 545 (2020) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Both compartmental knee arthroplasty (CKA) and open-wedge high tibial osteotomy (HTO) may be used to treat patients older than 50 years of age with advanced compartmental osteoarthritis (OA) secondary to leg axis deformities. A meta-analysis was conducted to clarify the role of open-wedge HTO versus CKA for patients older than 50 years with advanced compartmental knee OA. The present investigation aimed to analyse the clinical outcomes, implant failure and survivorship.

Methods

This meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. In September 2020, the main online databases were accessed. All clinical trials comparing the outcomes of open-wedge HTO versus CKA for compartmental knee OA were considered. Data analysis was performed through the Review Manager Software 5.3 (the Nordic Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen). Implant survivorship was analysed with a Kaplan-Meier (KM) curve that was performed using the STATA/MP software (StataCorp, College Station, TX).

Results

Data from 618 (HTO, 307; CKA, 311) patients were collected. Good baseline comparability among patient age, BMI and gender was detected. The Tegner Activity Scale was higher in the CKA group (P = 0.04), as were the Lysholm score (P = 0.001), the International Knee Documentation Committee (P = 0.0001) and the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (P = 0.05). At a mean follow-up of 5 years, revisions were less in the CKA cohort (OR, 2.27; P = 0.004). The Kaplan-Meier curve evidenced longer implant survivorship in favour of the CKA group (P = 0.01).

Conclusion

In patients older than 50 years of age with compartmental knee OA secondary to frontal axis leg deformities, CKA performed better than open-wedge HTO.

Introduction

Degenerative joint disease, such as osteoarthritis (OA) in the knee, is a common cause of complaint in older patients and carries an increasing financial burden [1]. Although knee OA can affect all three compartments of the knee, up to 30% of patients have evidence of only single compartmental degeneration [2, 3]. Despite multifactorial occurrences, compartmental knee OA is often caused by a deviation of the mechanical axis of the knee [4, 5]. Therefore, unloading the affected compartment may decelerate deterioration of the osteoarthritic joint. Open-wedge high tibial osteotomy (HTO) is considered a suitable surgical option for patients with compartmental OA secondary to mechanical axis deviation [6,7,8]. In the last decades, however, there has been a growing interest in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (CKA), which achieves excellent results along with very low rates of complications in single compartmental OA [9,10,11,12]. Traditionally, the open-wedge HTO was regarded to be the procedure of choice for active young (male) patients with preserved joint stability, preserved range of motion and absence of bi- or tricompartmental OA [13,14,15]. In contrast, a CKA was elected for older and less active patients with preserved range of motion, ligament stability and compartmental knee OA [16, 17]. Today, these indications have become less well defined, particularly in patients older than 50 years of age. Improvements in surgical techniques, implants and instruments, along with similar indications for both procedures, complicate the decision-making process [18]. Many authors agree that both HTOs and CKAs are valuable solutions for compartmental knee OA [13, 19, 20]. Thus, although CKA and HTO are established methods for surgical treatment of compartmental OA, the optimal intervention remains controversial. In the literature, a lack of evidence concerning the role of HTO versus CKA for compartmental knee OA exists [21,22,23]. Controversial results have been reported and are therefore currently debated [24,25,26]. Hence, a meta-analysis of clinical trials was conducted to clarify the role of open-wedge HTO versus CKA for compartmental knee OA. The present investigation aimed to analyse the clinical outcomes, failure and survivorship among the two surgical techniques.

Material and methods

This meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: the PRISMA guidelines [27]. The search strategy was performed in accordance with the following criteria:

  • P (population): Compartmental knee OA

  • I (intervention): Open-wedge proximal tibial osteotomy

  • C (comparison): Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

  • O (outcomes): Clinical scores, surgical revision and implant survivorship

Literature search

Two independent reviewers performed the literature search (FM; AD). In September 2020, the main databases were accessed: Pubmed, Google Scholar, Embase and Scopus. For the search, the following keywords were combined: knee, unicompartmental, unicondylar, compartmental, partial, arthrosis, degeneration, medial, arthroplasty, replacement, CKA, osteotomy, tibial, open wedge, Lysholm, Tegner, IKDC, KOOS, revision, survivorship, total knee arthroplasty, TKA, failure, pain, surgery. The same authors performed the data extraction. First, the titles were screened and if they were considered to be of interest, the abstract was screened as well. Secondly, the full-text version of these articles was accessed. The bibliographies of the articles of interest were examined as well.

Eligibility criteria

All clinical trials comparing the outcomes of open-wedge HTO versus CKA for compartmental knee OA were considered. Articles with levels of evidence I to III, according to the Oxford Centre of Evidenced-Based Medicine [28], were included. Given the author’s language capabilities, articles in English, Italian, German, French and Spanish were considered for inclusion. Registry studies were excluded. Case series and/or case reports, reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses were excluded. Given the rapid advancement and optimization of prosthetic implants and surgical techniques, only studies published after the year 2000 were considered for inclusion. Only articles reporting data on patients older than 50 years of age were considered for inclusion. Only articles reporting data on advanced knee joint degeneration (grade III to IV according to Kellgren and Lawrence score systems [29]) were eligible. Only articles reporting quantitative data under the outcomes of interest were included. Missing data under the preferred endpoints warranted exclusion from the present study. Disagreements between the authors were mutually debated and resolved by a third author (MT).

Outcomes of interest

Two independent authors (FM; AD) extracted data from the articles of interest, including name of the authors, year of publication, type of study, number of knees, female/male ratio, mean age, BMI and type of implant. The outcomes of interest were the analysis of the clinical and functional scores (Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale [30], Tegner Activity Scale [31], International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) [32], Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) [33]). Moreover, the rate of the failure (revision to total knee arthroplasty) and implant survivorship were also investigated.

Methodological quality assessment

Methodological quality assessment was performed by two authors (FM; AD). For the methodological quality assessment, the risk-of-bias summary tool Review Manager Software 5.3 (the Nordic Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen) was used. The following biases were analysed: randomization and allocation bias (selection bias), blinding (detection bias), incomplete data (attrition bias), selective reporting (reporting bias) and other bias.

Statistical analysis

The statistical analyses were performed by the main author (FM). To analyse baseline comparability among the samples, the unpaired t test was used, with values of P > 0.5 considered satisfactory. Data comparisons were performed with Review Manager Software 5.3 (the Nordic Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen). For continuous data, the inverse variance method was adopted. The mean difference was adopted as effect measure. For dichotomic data, the Mantel-Haenszel method was considered. The odd ratio (OR) was used to evaluate the effect measure. As for the analysis model, a fixed effect was chosen. The Chi-squared (χ2) and Higgins tests (I2) assessed heterogeneity. If χ2 > 0.5, the I2 test was performed. I2 test values of 25%, 50% and 75% detected low, moderate and high levels of heterogeneity, respectively. If high heterogeneity was detected, a random effect model was used. To assess the implant survivorship (revision to total knee arthroplasty), the Kaplan-Meier (KM) curve was performed using the STATA/MP software version 16.1 (StataCorp, College Station, TX). The KM curve was performed according to the Cox-regression through the Breslow method by hazard ratio (HR) effect measure. The confidence interval (CI) was set to 95% in all analyses. A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Search result

A total of 316 articles were identified during the initial search, of which 86 were redundant and, therefore, excluded from the study. A further 203 articles were excluded due to not reporting data under the outcomes of interest or not matching the eligibility criteria. This left 27 studies for inclusion. Another 11 articles were excluded because they were published before the year 2000. A further seven studies were rejected due to poor level of evidence. Two articles were excluded being based on data of unreliable sources. Three articles reported data from national registries and therefore were not eligible for inclusion. This left a total of seven studies for analysis. The flow chart of the literature search is illustrated in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow chart of the literature search

Full size image

Risk of publication bias

A funnel plot was generated to assess the risk of publication bias. We referred to the most commonly reported outcomes for analyses (Lysholm score). The analysis of the funnel plot detected a good distribution of the referral points. Most of the referral points were detected close to the confidence of acceptability. The funnel plot is shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Funnel plot of the outcome Lysholm score

Full size image

Methodological quality assessment

The quality of the methodological assessment scored fair to moderate. The reduced overall quality of the included studies negatively influenced the evidences concerning the present study. Most of the studies are retrospective, representing an important limitation. Authors’ judgements regarding each risk of bias item for each included study is shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Authors’ judgements regarding each risk of bias for included studies

Full size image

Patient demographic

Data from 618 patients were included. The mean follow-up was 58.69 ± 24.9 months. In the HTO group, a total of 307 patients were collected. 34.5% (106 of 307 patients) were women. The mean age was 56.1 ± 6.6 years, the mean BMI was 28.7 ± 6.6 kg/m2. A total of 311 patients were included for analysis in the CKA group. 43.1% (134 of 311 patients) were women. The mean age was 57.8 ± 9.6 years, and the mean BMI was 28.7 ± 3.5 kg/m2. The unpaired t test detected a good baseline comparability among patient age, BMI and gender between the two cohorts (P = 0.5, P = 0.9 and P = 0.5, respectively). Patient demographics are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Generalities and demographic data of included studies
Full size table

Functional and clinical outcomes

The Tegner activity scale scored greater in favour of the CKA group (EE, 0.69; 95% CI, 1.35 to 0.03; P = 0.04), as well as the Lysholm score (EE, 3.07; 95% CI, 4.95 to 1.19; P = 0.001), the IKDC (EE, 8.89; 95% CI, 13.48 to 4.29; P = 0.0001) and the KOOS (EE, 2.27; 95% CI, 8.77 to − 4.23; P = 0.05). A synopsis of these results is shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Synopsis of scores and data extracted from studies eligible for analysis
Full size table

Failure rate

A reduced rate of surgical failure was noted in the CKA group (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 0.50 to 10.34; P = 0.004; Table 2). These observations were even evidenced by the Kaplan-Meier curve (Fig. 4). The analysis was performed on a total of 484 observations (49 failures), resulting in a statistically significant (P = 0.01) longer survivorship in favour of the CKA group.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Kaplan-Meier curve

Full size image

Discussion

According to the main findings of this meta-analysis, CKA performed better overall. In patients older than 50 years with compartmental knee OA secondary to frontal leg malalignment, the CKA group achieved a statistically significant greater Tegner Activity score, Lysholm score, IKDC and KOOS, along with a statistically significant lower rate of revision surgeries compared to open-wedge HTO. This last point was also verified by the Kaplan-Meier curve at a mean of 5 years follow-up.

Lower limb frontal plane alignment is a determining factor for knee load distribution, and malalignments are a common cause of OA [26, 27]. According to Bellemans et al. [28], around 30% of males and 17% of females in Europe present with malalignment of the frontal plane > 3°. HTOs unload the involved compartment, transferring the load towards the centre or to the lateral compartment as evidenced in biomechanical studies [29]. Load transfer to the lateral compartment reduces joint pain hence improving knee function [26]. Studies combining mechanical readjustment with arthroscopic procedures (e.g. debridement, synovectomy or microfracture), or soft tissue transplantation/regeneration techniques, could improve outcomes compared to an isolated HTO [41, 42]. However, alignment corrections through HTO failed to ameliorate compartment degeneration. It has been stated that the HTO delays total joint replacement for roughly 10 years, with accurate corrections [26, 43, 44]. Concerning the CKA, axial correction of malalignment is infrequent. However, in the present study, CKAs resulted in a better clinical function and greater patient activity scores, reducing pain and stiffness and the need for revision surgeries, in addition to improving implant survivorship. Another limitation of HTOs are long rehabilitation and weight bearing restrictions for a minimum of 6 weeks (or longer), which may contribute to less desirable results [45, 46]. Especially for older patients, this may represent an important functional limitation and risk of residual immobilization [19]. In a recent meta-analysis of 13,789 patients [47], CKA was an effective solution for the treatment of end-stage compartmental knee degeneration, presenting a low complication rate, short surgical duration, low estimated blood loss and short hospitalization time. Compared to HTO, CKA patients presented increased maximum walking speed and single stance phase at 6 months follow-up [25, 48]. In their epidemiological study with data derived from a US private practice database, Nwachukwu et al. [49] evidenced an increasing trend of CKA at the expense of HTO for compartmental knee OA. Schindler et al. [50] found similar results in the UK.

Current evidence on the topic is controversial, and results from latest meta-analyses are contrasting. Fu et al. [22] performed a meta-analysis on 5840 knees (CKA 5081, HTO 759). Santoso et al. [21] performed a meta-analysis on 6538 knees (CKA 5497, HTO 1041), while Cao et al. [3] on 6222 knees (CKA 5335, 887 HTO). In contrast to the present study, they included both open- and closed-wedge HTOs, national registry data and studies in a timeframe between 1982 and 2017. Fu et al. [22] found no differences in revision and complication rate between the groups. However, Cao et al. [9] evidenced greater revision-rate and probability of complications in the HTO group. Santoso et al. [21] found no difference in revision surgeries but more complications in the HTO group. The results of knee-related functional scores are controversial. According to the current evidence, all studies agree that the HTO promotes better range of motion and no influence on progression of OA. Results of the present study demonstrate superior outcomes of CKA in all factors analysed.

The present meta-analysis has several limitations. Current evidence lacks high-quality studies, sample randomization and blinding methods on the topic. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were not analysed in the present investigation, representing another important limitation. The overall allocation process was unclear in most studies, leading to high risk of selection bias. Some authors discuss with their patients about the possible advantages and contraindications after informed consent, and the decision whether CKA or HTO was taken by mutual agreement is unclear [36, 37, 40]. Given these limitations, data from the present study must be interpreted with caution. Strengths of this work are the comprehensive nature of the literature search along with the strict eligibility criteria. Moreover, an optimal baseline comparability among patients age, BMI and gender was detected. Further studies should improve the evidence regarding the treatment of advanced compartmental knee OA, collecting more patients and improving the quality of recommendations through sample randomization and blinding.

Conclusion

In patients older than 50 years with compartmental knee OA secondary to frontal leg malalignments, CKA achieved a statistically significant greater Tegner Activity Score, Lysholm score, IKDC and KOOS, along with a statistically significant lower rate of revision surgeries compared to open-wedge HTO. This last point was also verified by the Kaplan-Meier survival curve at a mean of 5 years follow-up.

Availability of data and materials

This study does not contain any third material.

Abbreviations

CKA:

Compartmental knee arthroplasty

HTO:

Open-wedge high tibial osteotomy

OA:

Osteoarthritis

KM:

Kaplan-Meier

HR:

Hazard ratio

IKDC:

International Knee Documentation Committee

KOOS:

Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score

References

  1. March LM, Schwarz JM, Carfrae BH, et al. Clinical validation of self-reported osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 1998;6:87–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Longo UG, Loppini M, Fumo C, et al. Osteoarthritis: new insights in animal models. Open Orthop J. 2012;6:558–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Cao Z, Mai X, Wang J, et al. Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty vs High Tibial Osteotomy for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33:952–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Tetsworth K, Paley D. Malalignment and degenerative arthropathy. Orthop Clin North Am. 1994;25:367–77.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Phillips MJ, Krackow KA. High tibial osteotomy and distal femoral osteotomy for valgus or varus deformity around the knee. Instr Course Lect. 1998;47:429–36.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Takeuchi R, Aratake M, Bito H, et al. Clinical results and radiographical evaluation of opening wedge high tibial osteotomy for spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009;17:361–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Akizuki S, Shibakawa A, Takizawa T, et al. The long-term outcome of high tibial osteotomy: a ten- to 20-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:592–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Goshima K, Sawaguchi T, Sakagoshi D, et al. Age does not affect the clinical and radiological outcomes after open-wedge high tibial osteotomy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25:918–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Danford NGM, Heller MS, Murtaugh T, Shah RP, Cooper HJ, Lakra A, Geller JA. Which do patients prefer, unicompartmental or total knee arthroplasty? J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2018;9(4):292–4.

  10. Siman H, Kamath AF, Carrillo N, et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty vs total knee arthroplasty for medial compartment arthritis in patients older than 75 years: comparable reoperation, revision, and complication rates. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32:1792–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Shankar S, Tetreault MW, Jegier BJ, et al. A cost comparison of unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty. Knee. 2016;23:1016–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ode Q, Gaillard R, Batailler C, et al. Fewer complications after UKA than TKA in patients over 85 years of age: a case-control study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2018;104(7):955–9.

  13. Rossi R, Bonasia DE, Amendola A. The role of high tibial osteotomy in the varus knee. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011;19:590–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Amendola A. The role of osteotomy in the multiple ligament injured knee. Arthroscopy. 2003;19(Suppl 1):11–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wright JM, Crockett HC, Slawski DP, et al. High tibial osteotomy. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2005;13:279–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Borus T, Thornhill T. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008;16:9–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Amendola A, Bonasia DE. Results of high tibial osteotomy: review of the literature. Int Orthop. 2010;34:155–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Dettoni F, Bonasia DE, Castoldi F, et al. High tibial osteotomy versus unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for medial compartment arthrosis of the knee: a review of the literature. Iowa Orthop J. 2010;30:131–40.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Argenson JN, Chevrol-Benkeddache Y, Aubaniac JM. Modern unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cement: a three to ten-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:2235–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Santoso MB, Wu L. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, is it superior to high tibial osteotomy in treating unicompartmental osteoarthritis? A meta-analysis and systemic review. J Orthop Surg Res. 2017;12:50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Fu D, Li G, Chen K, et al. Comparison of high tibial osteotomy and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the treatment of unicompartmental osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28:759–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Brouwer RW, Huizinga MR, Duivenvoorden T, et al. Osteotomy for treating knee osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;2014(12):CD004019.

  24. Oh KJ, Kim YC, Lee JS, et al. Open-wedge high tibial osteotomy versus unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: no difference in progression of patellofemoral joint arthritis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25:767–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Han SB, Kyung HS, Seo IW, et al. Better clinical outcomes after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty when comparing with high tibial osteotomy. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96:e9268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Spahn G, Hofmann GO, von Engelhardt LV, et al. The impact of a high tibial valgus osteotomy and unicondylar medial arthroplasty on the treatment for knee osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21:96–112.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Howick J CI, Glasziou P, Greenhalgh T, Heneghan C, Liberati A, Moschetti I, Phillips B, Thornton H, Goddard O, Hodgkinson M. 2011. The 2011 Oxford levels of evidence. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Available at https://www.cebmnet/indexaspx?o=5653. Accessed Sept 2020.

  29. Petersson IF, Boegard T, Saxne T, et al. Radiographic osteoarthritis of the knee classified by the Ahlback and Kellgren & Lawrence systems for the tibiofemoral joint in people aged 35-54 years with chronic knee pain. Ann Rheum Dis. 1997;56:493–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Lysholm J, Gillquist J. Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale. Am J Sports Med. 1982;10:150–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Briggs KK, Lysholm J, Tegner Y, et al. The reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Lysholm score and Tegner activity scale for anterior cruciate ligament injuries of the knee: 25 years later. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37:890–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Higgins LD, Taylor MK, Park D, et al. Reliability and validity of the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee form. Joint Bone Spine. 2007;74:594–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Roos EM, Lohmander LS. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Jeon YS, Ahn CH, Kim MK. Comparison of HTO with articular cartilage surgery and UKA in unicompartmental OA. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2017;25:2309499016684092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Krych AJ, Reardon P, Sousa P, et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty provides higher activity and durability than valgus-producing proximal tibial osteotomy at 5 to 7 years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99:113–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Petersen W, Metzlaff S. Open wedge high tibial osteotomy (HTO) versus mobile bearing unicondylar medial joint replacement: five years results. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016;136:983–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ryu SM, Park JW, Na HD, et al. High tibial osteotomy versus unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for medial compartment arthrosis with kissing lesions in relatively young patients. Knee Surg Relat Res. 2018;30:17–22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Stukenborg-Colsman C, Wirth CJ, Lazovic D, et al. High tibial osteotomy versus unicompartmental joint replacement in unicompartmental knee joint osteoarthritis: 7-10-year follow-up prospective randomised study. Knee. 2001;8:187–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Takeuchi R, Umemoto Y, Aratake M, et al. A mid term comparison of open wedge high tibial osteotomy vs unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee. J Orthop Surg Res. 2010;5:65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Yim JH, Song EK, Seo HY, et al. Comparison of high tibial osteotomy and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum follow-up of 3 years. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28:243–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Elattar M, Dhollander A, Verdonk R, et al. Twenty-six years of meniscal allograft transplantation: is it still experimental? A meta-analysis of 44 trials. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19:147–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Schultz W, Gobel D. Articular cartilage regeneration of the knee joint after proximal tibial valgus osteotomy: a prospective study of different intra- and extra-articular operative techniques. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1999;7:29–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Flecher X, Parratte S, Aubaniac JM, et al. A 12-28-year followup study of closing wedge high tibial osteotomy. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;452:91–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Stuart MJ, Grace JN, Ilstrup DM, et al. Late recurrence of varus deformity after proximal tibial osteotomy. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;(260):61–5.

  45. Andriacchi TP, Galante JO, Fermier RW. The influence of total knee-replacement design on walking and stair-climbing. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982;64:1328–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Weinstein JN, Andriacchi TP, Galante J. Factors influencing walking and stairclimbing following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1986;1:109–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Migliorini F, Tingart M, Niewiera M, et al. Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty for knee osteoarthritis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2019;29:947–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Ivarsson I, Gillquist J. Rehabilitation after high tibial osteotomy and unicompartmental arthroplasty. A comparative study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991;(266):139–44.

  49. Nwachukwu BU, McCormick FM, Schairer WW, et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus high tibial osteotomy: United States practice patterns for the surgical treatment of unicompartmental arthritis. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29:1586–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Schindler OS, Scott WN, Scuderi GR. The practice of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the United Kingdom. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2010;18:312–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None

Funding

No external source of funding was used. Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, RWTH University Hospital Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany

    Filippo Migliorini, Arne Driessen & Markus Tingart

  2. Department of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, University of Salerno, Via S. Allende, 84081, Baronissi, SA, Italy

    Francesco Oliva & Nicola Maffulli

  3. Wholelife Clinics, London, UK

    Gayle D. Maffulli

  4. Centre for Sports and Exercise Medicine, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Hospital, 275 Bancroft Road, London, E1 4DG, England, UK

    Nicola Maffulli

  5. School of Pharmacy and Bioengineering, Keele University Faculty of Medicine, Thornburrow Drive, Stoke on Trent, England, UK

    Nicola Maffulli

Authors
  1. Filippo Migliorini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arne Driessen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francesco Oliva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gayle D. Maffulli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Markus Tingart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nicola Maffulli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

FM: literature search, data extraction, methodological quality assessment and statistical analysis manuscript draft. FO: supervision. GDM: supervision and approval. MT: supervision and approval. AD: literature search, data extraction, methodological quality assessment. NM: revision and approval. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Filippo Migliorini.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Consent for publication

All the author approved the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Migliorini, F., Driessen, A., Oliva, F. et al. Better outcomes and reduced failures for arthroplasty over osteotomy for advanced compartmental knee osteoarthritis in patients older than 50 years. J Orthop Surg Res 15, 545 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-02079-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-02079-6

Keywords

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

ISSN: 1749-799X