4.1 Article

Influence of Bone Marrow Edema on Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty among Patients with Patellofemoral Osteoarthritis

期刊

JOURNAL OF KNEE SURGERY
卷 30, 期 8, 页码 816-821

出版社

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1605560

关键词

unicompartmental knee arthroplasty; patellofemoral osteoarthritis; clinical outcome; short-term results; bone marrow edema pattern

向作者/读者索取更多资源

X This study aims to compare clinical outcomes in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) patients with or without magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evidence of bone marrow edema (BME) in the patella and to evaluate the effect of functional outcomes after UKA in patients with patellofemoral osteoarthritis (PF OA). Outcomes of 146 knees in 141 patients who underwent medial UKA were included. According to their preoperative condition of patellofemoral joints, patients were divided into three groups: Group A, non-PF OA (Kellgren-Lawrence [K-L] scale = 0); group B, PF OA without BME (K-L >= 1, bone marrow edema pattern [BMEP] = 0); group C, PF OA with BME (K-L >= 1, BMEP >= 1). Clinical outcomes including visual analog scale (VAS) scores of knee pain, Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) scores, and range of motions (ROMs) were evaluated and analyzed at the postoperative follow-up of 3 months and 2 years. From our results, BME was highly correlated to poor outcome in patients with UKA. At follow-up of 3 months, BME influenced the clinical outcome of UKA at an early postoperative stage in terms of VAS scores, HSS scores, and ROMs. At the final follow-up of 2 years, the clinical outcome was improved in terms of HSS score, although the anterior knee pain and active ROMs were still worse than that of patients without BME. In conclusion, there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes in patients without BME regardless of PF OA. However, the condition of BME should be taken serious consideration because of its indication of an adverse effect on the outcome after UKA.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据