• Users Online: 110
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
STUDY PROTOCOL
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 3  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 74-80

Comparing unicompartmental to total knee arthroplasty in medial gonarthritis: study protocol for 2-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial


1 Institution of Clinical Sciences, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC) Karolinska Institutet; Department of Orthopedics, Karolinska University Hospital, SE-141 86, Stockholm, Sweden
2 Department of Orthopedics, Karolinska University Hospital, SE-141 86, Stockholm, Sweden

Correspondence Address:
Carl Aulin
Institution of Clinical Sciences, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC) Karolinska Institutet; Department of Orthopedics, Karolinska University Hospital, SE-141 86, Stockholm
Sweden
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2542-4157.233632

Rights and Permissions

Background and objectives: Since the 1990s, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) are again starting to gain interest worldwide. A mere 3.5% of all knee arthroplasties performed in Sweden 2014 were UKAs, whereas up to 25% had knee osteoarthritis isolated to the medial side. Reasons for this discrepancy might be that UKAs are considered more technically demanding, thus requiring more surgical training, and that long-term survival of these implants has been inferior compared to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This has been addressed by improving surgical instruments and discontinuation of underperforming implants, and by improving surgical technique including mini-invasive incision and patient selection. In support of using the less surgically invasive UKA, a few cohort studies show less pain, fewer hospital days, and faster rehabilitation. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is a lack of high quality randomized clinical trials (RCTs) showing unequivocal clinical superiority of UKA compared to TKA. The aim of the present study is to compare changes in muscle mass, strength, performance based measures (PBMs), and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients randomized to UKA or TKA. Design: A 2-year follow-up RCT. Methods: The study will include 80 patients with medial knee osteoarthritis, aged 50 years or more, who will be scheduled for a knee replacement and equally randomized to either TKA or UKA. Outcome measures: The primary outcome is muscle mass change at 6 weeks, 6, 12 and 24 months post-operatively measured by computed tomography. Secondary outcomes are PBMs, PROMs, muscle strength, and 3D motion analysis at the same occasions. Discussion: Although patients subjected to total hip arthroplasty are typically satisfied with their surgical results, patients with TKA are less so. It is of importance to improve surgical procedure, and less invasive surgery of the knee might be a solution. Ethics and dissemination: The study has been approved by the Regional Ethics Committee in Stockholm (DNR: 2014/1895-31/3) and will be conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. All patients will sign a consent form after being given oral and written information of the study. Patient recruitment began in November 2015 and will end in December 2019. Data collection will complete in June 2021. We plan to present results in open access scientific publications and at scientific conferences and meetings. Trial registration: The study protocol was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT 02563756) on September 18, 2015. Protocol version: 1.0.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed294    
    Printed14    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded47    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal