Forgotten Joint Score: Comparison between total and unicondylar knee arthroplasty |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust, Hardwick Lane, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk IP33 2QZ, United Kingdom;2. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom;1. Division of Hip and Knee Reconstruction and Replacement, Chicago Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, Chicago, IL;2. Division of Hip and Knee Reconstruction and Replacement, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL;3. Division of Hip and Knee Reconstruction and Replacement, Orthopedic and Sports Medicine Center of Oregon, Portland, OR;4. Midwest Orthopaedics at Rush, University Medical Center, Chicago, IL;1. College of Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN;2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Orthopaedic and Rheumatologic Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio;1. MABE Department, Center for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN;2. Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC;1. Fiona Stanley Hospital Group & Orthopaedics WA, Perth, Australia;2. Curtin University, Perth, Australia;3. University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia;4. Steve Biko Academic Hospital, The University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa;5. Mater Hospital, Sydney, Australia;6. Orthopaedic Department, Western Health, Melbourne, Australia;7. Wagga Private Hospital, Wagga, Australia;8. Westmead Private Hospital, Sydney, Australia;9. The University of Sydney & Northern Local Area Health District (Royal North Shore Hospital), Sydney, Australia;1. Department of Orthopaedics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah;2. Rothman Institute of Orthopaedics at Thomas Jefferson University, Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey;3. Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania |
| |
| Abstract: | BackgroundThe aim of this study is to assess the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) with both short- and long-term follow-up.MethodsFor a consecutive period of eight months, the FJS was sent to all patients who had undergone either a primary TKA or UKA either one, five or ten years previously at our institution. Patient demographics and operative details were recorded retrospectively. FJS were collected for three different TKA prosthesis and two different UKA prosthesis.ResultsA total of 588 FJS questionnaires were completed consisting of 482 TKA and 106 UKA procedures.The mean FJS for patients with TKA and UKA were 50.2 and 65.4 respectively (p < 0.001). Mean FJS for the ZUK were statistically superior to the Oxford UKA, 73.1 versus 60.1 (p = 0.020). For TKA mean FJS were statistically better at five compared to one year follow up, 53.8 versus 44.8 (p = 0.007). For UKA the mean FJJs were greatest at 10 year follow up (69.0), but the difference between scores at one (60.4) and five (68.4) years was not statistically significant (p = 0.243).ConclusionThis cross-sectional study has shown; superior FJSs for UKA compared to TKA and superior FJSs for a fixed bearing compared to a mobile bearing UKA and therefore supports the use of UKA opposed to TKA where the indications for UKA are satisfied. For TKA the FJS in the five-year post-operative group were significantly superior to those in the one-year post-operative group. |
| |
| Keywords: | Forgotten joint score Knee arthroplasty Fixed bearing Mobile bearing Unicondylar knee arthroplasty |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
