Medial/central PF arthritis and functionally stable ACL deficiency do not compromise outcomes of fixed-bearing medial UKA.

BACKGROUND: There is limited published data assessing functional scores and patient satisfaction following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) in patients with patellofemoral (PF) arthritis or anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) deficiency. The purpose of this study was to determine whether medial/central PF arthritis or functionally stable ACL deficiency compromise outcomes of fixed-bearing medial UKA at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. The hypothesis was that equivalent outcomes can be achieved in patients with substantial medial/central PF arthritis or with functionally stable ACL deficiency. METHODS: The authors studied a consecutive series of 229 patients (240 knees) at 36.9 ± 6.3 months after receiving fixed-bearing medial UKA. Patients completed pre- and post-operative (2 years) clinical outcome questionnaires for Oxford Knee Score (OKS), EQ-5D, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Physical Function Short Form (KOOS-PS), University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score, and Forgotten Joint Score (FJS). Multivariable analyses were performed to determine associations between clinical scores, patient demographics, PF arthritis and functionally stable ACL deficiency. RESULTS: Of the 240 knees, 125 (54%) had substantial medial/central PF arthritis and 21 (9%) functionally stable ACL deficiency. Multivariable analyses revealed no association between outcomes and medial/central PF arthritis, but knees with functionally stable ACL deficiency were associated with better KOOS-PS (ß = 8.99, p = 0.012). CONCLUSION: Fixed-bearing medial UKA grants satisfactory outcomes at 2 years even in knees with substantial medial/central PF arthritis or functionally stable ACL deficiency. Longer-term prospective studies with larger cohorts are needed to confirm these promising findings regarding outcomes in patients traditionally contraindicated for medial UKA.

Is there sufficient evidence to support intervention to manage shoulder arthritis?

BACKGROUND: We explore the nature, extent and validity of research studies concerning the management of shoulder arthritis to identify whether current management recommendations are adequate. METHODS: A full electronic search for relevant studies published between 2002 and 2012 was performed. The search focused on level 1 and level 2 studies. Full texts of selected articles were retrieved and assessed for quality against validated criteria. RESULTS: Four hundred and eleven studies were identified on the initial search and screened. Sixteen studies were selected for inclusion in the review. The studies identified were unable to provide a clear indication of best intervention for shoulder arthritis. The inclusion of a range of shoulder pathologies in some studies and the diversity in outcome measures used made it difficult for systematic reviews to effectively pool data. Better outcomes have been shown with total shoulder replacement over hemiarthroplasty for shoulder osteoarthritis; however, primary studies were often of limited quality. Sparse evidence is available for all other interventions, regardless of whether operative or non-operative. CONCLUSIONS: The present review highlights the need for standardization of outcome assessment following treatment of shoulder arthritis. More rigorous and robust primary studies are needed to guide clinical practice on the best interventions for arthritis of the shoulder.