ObjectiveTo assess if arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) is superior to placebo surgery in the treatment of patients with degenerative tear of the medial meniscus.MethodsIn this multicentre, randomised, participant-blinded and outcome assessor-blinded, placebo-surgery controlled trial, 146 adults, aged 35–65 years, with knee symptoms consistent with degenerative medial meniscus tear and no knee osteoarthritis were randomised to APM or placebo surgery. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in the change from baseline in the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) and Lysholm knee scores and knee pain after exercise at 24 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes included the frequency of unblinding of the treatment-group allocation, participants' satisfaction, impression of change, return to normal activities, the incidence of serious adverse events and the presence of meniscal symptoms in clinical examination. Two subgroup analyses, assessing the outcome on those with mechanical symptoms and those with unstable meniscus tears, were also carried out.ResultsIn the intention-to-treat analysis, there were no significant between-group differences in the mean changes from baseline to 24 months in WOMET score: 27.3 in the APM group as compared with 31.6 in the placebo-surgery group (between-group difference, −4.3; 95% CI, −11.3 to 2.6); Lysholm knee score: 23.1 and 26.3, respectively (−3.2; −8.9 to 2.4) or knee pain after exercise, 3.5 and 3.9, respectively (−0.4; −1.3 to 0.5). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in any of the secondary outcomes or within the analysed subgroups.ConclusionsIn this 2-year follow-up of patients without knee osteoarthritis but with symptoms of a degenerative medial meniscus tear, the outcomes after APM were no better than those after placebo surgery. No evidence could be found to support the prevailing ideas that patients with presence of mechanical symptoms or certain meniscus tear characteristics or those who have failed initial conservative treatment are more likely to benefit from APM.

ObjectiveThe primary objective of the trial was to assess the clinical effectiveness of medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty in patients with isolated medial osteoarthritis of the knee.DesignProspective, randomised, 2 years, assessor-blind, multicentre, superiority trial.SettingThe patients were enrolled between December 2015 and May 2018 from the outpatient clinics of three public high-volume arthroplasty hospitals (Finland).ParticipantsWe recruited 143 patients with symptomatic-isolated medial osteoarthritis of the knee needing an arthroplasty procedure. All the patients were suitable for both unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasties. Population was selected as the end-stage-isolated medial osteoarthritis.InterventionsAll patients, randomized 1:1, received a medial unicompartmental arthroplasty or a total knee arthroplasty through a similar midline skin incision. Patients were blinded to the type of arthroplasty for the whole 2 years of follow-up.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome measure was between-group differences in the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and secondary outcome Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Score (KOOS) at 2 years postoperatively. The changes within and between the groups were analysed with analysis of variance for repeated measurements.ResultsThe primary outcome was comparable for medial unicompartmental arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty at 2 years. The mean difference in the OKS between the groups was 1.6 points (95% CI −0.7 to 3.9). In the KOOS subscales, the mean difference between the groups was 0.1 points (95% CI −4.8 to 5.0) for pain, 7.8 points (95% CI 1.5 to 14.0) for symptoms, 4.3 points (95% CI −0.6 to 9.2) for function in daily living, 4.3 points (95% CI −3.0 to 11.6) for function in sports, and 2.1 points (95% CI −4.8 to 9.1) for knee-related quality of life.ConclusionsThe recovery after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty was faster compared with total knee arthroplasty, but unicompartmental arthroplasty did not provide a better patient-reported outcome at 2 years.Trial registration numberNCT02481427.

Background: Patient selection for either total knee arthroplasty or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty remains controversial. The latter has several reported advantages over total knee arthroplasty, but it also appears to have significant drawbacks in terms of revision rates.Aims: This study aimed to determine the influence of the preoperative degree of osteoarthritis on the risk of reoperation following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.Methods: Surgery was carried out on 294 knees in 241 patients between 2001 and 2012 at a single institute, using cemented Oxford phase III unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. The mean age at the time of operation was 67 years, and the mean follow-up time was 8.7 years.Results and Conclusion: The knees with a preoperative Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 0-2 osteoarthritis had a higher risk of reoperation than those with a Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 3-4 (odds ratio = 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-3.45; p = 0.04). In addition, the knees with a medial joint space width of more than 1 mm or a high medial/lateral joint space width ratio had an increased risk of reoperation. In conclusion, we suggest that unicompartmental knee arthroplasty should only be performed in cases showing severe osteoarthritis in preoperative radiographs, with medial bone-on-bone contact, and a medial/lateral ratio of <20%.

Background: Cementless unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) was introduced to secure longterm fixation and reduce the risk of revision. Experience with cementless UKA fixation is limited. Methods: The short-term survival (up to five years) of cementless Oxford UKA was assessed using data from the Finish Arthroplasty Register and was compared with that of cemented Oxford 3 UKA and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Datawere obtained, from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register, on 1076 cementless Oxford UKAs and 2279 cemented Oxford 3 UKAs performed for primary osteoarthritis in 2005-2015. The Kaplan-Meier method, with revision for any reason as the endpoint, was used to assess the survival of these two UKA groups, and the results were compared with that of 65,563 cemented TKAs treated for primary osteoarthritis over the same period. The risk of revision of both Oxford prostheses was compared using Cox regression model, with adjustment for age and sex, with the cemented TKA group as reference. Results: The three-year survival was 93.7% for the cementless Oxford, 92.2% for the cemented Oxford 3, and 97.3% for the cemented TKA. The corresponding figures at five years were 92.3%, 88.9%, and 96.6%, respectively. The revision rate for both the cementless Oxford and the cemented Oxford 3 was significantly increased when compared with the cemented TKA (P b 0.001). Conclusions: The survival of the cementless Oxford method was higher than that of the cemented Oxford 3 in the short term. The overall survival of Oxford UKA was poor in comparison with contemporary TKAs.