User login
Take-Home Points
- PFA improved knee function and pain scores in patients with isolated patellofemoral arthritis.
- The majority (84.2%) of patients undergoing PFA were female.
- Regardless of age or gender, 72.2% of patients returned to their desired preoperative activity after PFA, and 52.8% returned at the same or higher level.
- The rate of conversion from PFA to TKA was 6.3%.
- PFA is an alternative to TKA in active patients with isolated patellofemoral arthritis.
Compared with total knee arthroplasty (TKA), single-compartment knee arthroplasty may provide better physiologic function, faster recovery, and higher rates of return to activities in patients with unicompartmental knee disease.1-3 In 1955, McKeever4 introduced patellar arthroplasty for surgical management of isolated patellofemoral arthritis. In 1979, Lubinus5 improved on the technique and design by adding a femoral component. Since then, implants and techniques have been developed to effect better clinical outcomes. Patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) has many advantages over TKA in the treatment of patellofemoral arthritis. PFA is less invasive, requires shorter tourniquet times, has faster recovery, and spares the tibiofemoral compartment, leaving more native bone for potential conversion to TKA. Regarding activity and function, the resurfacing arthroplasty (vs TKA) allows maintenance of nearly normal knee kinematics.
Despite these advantages, the broader orthopedic surgery community has only cautiously accepted PFA. The procedure has high complication rates. Persistent instability, malalignment, wear, impingement, and tibiofemoral arthritis progression can occur after PFA.6 Although first-generation PFA prostheses often failed because of mechanical problems, loosening, maltracking, or instability,7 the most common indication for PFA revision has been, according to a recent large retrospective study,8 unexplained pain. More than 10 to 15 years after PFA, tibiofemoral arthritis may be the primary mechanism of failure.9 Nevertheless, compared with standard TKA for isolated patellofemoral arthritis, modern PFA does not have significantly different clinical outcomes, including complication and revision rates.6Numerous patient factors influence functional prognosis before and after knee arthroplasty, regardless of surgical technique and implant used. Age, comorbidities, athletic status, mental health, pain, functional limitations, excessive caution, “artificial joint”–related worries, and rehabilitation protocol all influence function.10 Return to activity and other quality-of-life indices are important aspects of postoperative patient satisfaction.
Methods
We conducted a retrospective cohort study to describe functional status after PFA for patellofemoral arthritis. We identified 48 consecutive PFAs (39 patients) performed by a team of 2 orthopedic surgeons (specialists in treating patellofemoral pathology) between 2009 and 2014.
Three validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were used to determine preoperative (baseline) and postoperative functional status: Kujala score, Lysholm score, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score. The Kujala score is a measure of knee function specific to the patellofemoral joint; the Lysholm score focuses on activities related to the knee; and the IKDC score is a general measure of knee function. Charts were reviewed to extract patients’ clinical data, including preoperative outcome scores, medical history, physical examination data, intraoperative characteristics, and postoperative course. By telephone, patients answered questions about their postoperative clinical course and completed final follow-up questionnaires. They were also asked which sporting or fitness activity they had preferred before surgery and whether they were able to return to that activity after surgery.
Statistical analysis included the study population’s descriptive statistics. Means and SDs were reported for continuous variables, and frequencies and percentages were reported for categorical variables. Paired t tests were used to analyze changes in PROM scores. For comparison of differences between characteristics of patients who did and did not return to their previous activity level, independent-samples t tests were used for continuous variables. Chi-square tests or Fisher exact tests were used to compare discrete variables. Statistical significance was set at P ≤ .05. All analyses were performed with SPSS Version 22.0 (IBM).
Results
Postoperative knee-specific PROM scores and general pain score (reported by the patient on a scale of 0-10) were statistically significantly improved (P < .001 for all measures) over preoperative scores (Table 4). 
After surgery, 1 patient (2.6%) developed a pulmonary embolus, which was successfully identified and treated without incident. Five patients (10.4%) had another surgery on the same knee. Three patients (6.3%) underwent conversion to TKA: 1 for continued symptoms in the setting of newly diagnosed inflammatory arthritis, 1 for arthritic pain, and 1 for patellofemoral instability. Two patients (4.2%) underwent irrigation and débridement: 1 for hematoma and 1 for suspected (culture-negative) infection.
Discussion
Historically, the literature evaluating knee arthroplasty outcomes has focused on implant survivorship, pain relief, and patient satisfaction. Since the advent of partial knee arthroplasty options, more attention has been given to functional outcomes and return to activities after single-compartment knee resurfacing. TKA remains the gold standard by which newer, less invasive surgical options are measured. In a large prospective study, 97% of patients (age, >55 years) who had TKA for patellofemoral arthritis reported good or excellent clinical results, the majority being excellent.11 Post-TKA functional status and activity levels may not be rated as highly. After TKA, many patients switch to lower impact sports or reduce or stop their participation in sports.12 A small study of competitive adult tennis players found high levels of post-TKA satisfaction, ability to resume playing tennis, pain relief, and increased or continued enjoyment in playing.13 In a study of 355 patients (417 knees) who had underwent TKA, improvement in Knee Society function score showed a moderate correlation to an increase in weighted activity score (R = 0.362).14
Unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) is becoming a popular treatment option for single-compartment tibiofemoral arthritis. A systematic review of 18 original studies of patients with knee osteoarthritis found that overall return to sports varied from 36% to 89% after TKA and from 75% to 100% after UKA.15 In another study, return-to-sports rates were similar for UKA (87%) and TKA (83%); the only significant difference was UKA patients returned quicker.16 The authors of a large meta-analysis conceded that significant heterogeneity of data prevented them from drawing definitive conclusions, but UKA patients seemed to return to low- and high-impact sports 2 weeks faster than their TKA counterparts.10 Overall, UKA and TKA patients (age, 51-71 years) had comparable return-to-sports rates at an average of 4 years after surgery.10 A smaller study corroborated faster return to sports for UKA over TKA patients and also found that, compared with TKA patients, UKA patients participated in sports more regularly and over a longer period.17 On the other hand, Walton and colleagues18 found similar return-to-sports rates but higher frequency of and satisfaction with sports participation in UKA over TKA patients.
A large retrospective study found no differences in rates of return to sports after TKA, UKA, patellar resurfacing, hip resurfacing, and total hip arthroplasty.19 Pain was the most common barrier to return. UKA patients who returned to sports tended to be younger than those who did not.20 Naal and colleagues3 found that 95% of UKA patients returned to their activities—hiking, walking, cycling, and swimming being most common. Although 90.3% of patients said surgery maintained or improved their ability to participate in sports, participation in high-impact sports (eg, running) decreased after surgery.
Outcomes of PFA vary because of evolving patient selection, implant design, surgical technique, and return-to-activity expectations.21,22 Most PFA outcome studies focus on implant survivorship, complication rates, and postoperative knee scores.23-28 PFA studies focused on return to activities are limited. Kooijman and colleagues7 and Mertl and colleagues29 reported good or excellent clinical results of PFA in 86% and 82% of patients, respectively. Neither study included a comprehensive analysis of postoperative functional status. Similarly, De Cloedt and colleagues30 reported good PFA outcomes in 43% of patients with degenerative joint disease and in 83% of patients with instability. Specific activity status was not described. Dahm and colleagues31 and Farr and colleagues32 suggested postoperative pain resolution motivates some PFA patients not only to resume preoperative activities but to start participating in new, higher level activities after pain has subsided. However, the studies did not examine the characteristics of patients who returned to baseline activities and did not examine return-to-sports rates.
Study Strengths and Limitations
Our study focused on the PFA patient population of a surgical team of 2 fellowship-trained orthopedic surgeons (specialists in treating patellofemoral pathology). Although generalization of our findings to other surgeons and different implants may be limited, the study design standardized treatment in a way that makes these findings more reliable. The 100% follow-up strengthens these findings as well. Last, though the patient population was relatively small, it was consistent with or larger than the PFA patient groups studied previously.
Conclusion
In this study, PROM and pain scores were significantly improved after PFA. That almost 75% of patients returned to their preferred activities and >50% of patients returned at the same or a higher activity level provides useful information for preoperative discussions with patients who want to remain active after PFA. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate the longevity and durability of PFA, particularly in active patients.
1. Laurencin CT, Zelicof SB, Scott RD, Ewald FC. Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in the same patient. A comparative study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991;(273):151-156.
2. Kozinn SC, Scott R. Unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989;71(1):145-150.
3. Naal FD, Fischer M, Preuss A, et al. Return to sports and recreational activity after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(10):1688-1695.
4. McKeever DC. Patellar prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1955;37(5):1074-1084.
5. Lubinus HH. Patella glide bearing total replacement. Orthopedics. 1979;2(2):119-127.
6. Dy CJ, Franco N, Ma Y, Mazumdar M, McCarthy MM, Gonzalez Della Valle A. Complications after patello-femoral versus total knee replacement in the treatment of isolated patello-femoral osteoarthritis. A meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(11):2174-2190.
7. Kooijman HJ, Driessen AP, van Horn JR. Long-term results of patellofemoral arthroplasty. A report of 56 arthroplasties with 17 years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003;85(6):836-840.
8. Baker PN, Refaie R, Gregg P, Deehan D. Revision following patello-femoral arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(10):2047-2053.
9. Lonner JH, Bloomfield MR. The clinical outcome of patellofemoral arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 2013;44(3):271-280.
10. Papalia R, Del Buono A, Zampogna B, Maffulli N, Denaro V. Sport activity following joint arthroplasty: a systematic review. Br Med Bull. 2012;101:81-103.
11. Mont MA, Haas S, Mullick T, Hungerford DS. Total knee arthroplasty for patellofemoral arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84(11):1977-1981.
12. Chatterji U, Ashworth MJ, Lewis PL, Dobson PJ. Effect of total knee arthroplasty on recreational and sporting activity. ANZ J Surg. 2005;75(6):405-408.
13. Mont MA, Rajadhyaksha AD, Marxen JL, Silberstein CE, Hungerford DS. Tennis after total knee arthroplasty. Am J Sports Med. 2002;30(2):163-166.
14. Marker DR, Mont MA, Seyler TM, McGrath MS, Kolisek FR, Bonutti PM. Does functional improvement following TKA correlate to increased sports activity? Iowa Orthop J. 2009;29:11-16.
15. Witjes S, Gouttebarge V, Kuijer PP, van Geenen RC, Poolman RW, Kerkhoffs GM. Return to sports and physical activity after total and unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2016;46(2):269-292.
16. Ho JC, Stitzlein RN, Green CJ, Stoner T, Froimson MI. Return to sports activity following UKA and TKA. J Knee Surg. 2016;29(3):254-259.
17. Hopper GP, Leach WJ. Participation in sporting activities following knee replacement: total versus unicompartmental. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008;16(10):973-979.
18. Walton NP, Jahromi I, Lewis PL, Dobson PJ, Angel KR, Campbell DG. Patient-perceived outcomes and return to sport and work: TKA versus mini-incision unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. 2006;19(2):112-116.
19. Wylde V, Blom A, Dieppe P, Hewlett S, Learmonth I. Return to sport after joint replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90(7):920-923.
20. Pietschmann MF, Wohlleb L, Weber P, et al. Sports activities after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty Oxford III—what can we expect? Int Orthop. 2013;37(1):31-37.
21. Lonner JH. Patellofemoral arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2010;33(9):653.
22. Lustig S. Patellofemoral arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014;100(1 suppl):S35-S43.
23. Krajca-Radcliffe JB, Coker TP. Patellofemoral arthroplasty. A 2- to 18-year followup study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;(330):143-151.
24. Mihalko WM, Boachie-Adjei Y, Spang JT, Fulkerson JP, Arendt EA, Saleh KJ. Controversies and techniques in the surgical management of patellofemoral arthritis. Instr Course Lect. 2008;57:365-380.
25. Lonner JH. Patellofemoral arthroplasty: pros, cons, and design considerations. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;(428):158-165.
26. Lonner JH. Patellofemoral arthroplasty: the impact of design on outcomes. Orthop Clin North Am. 2008;39(3):347-354.
27. Farr J 2nd, Barrett D. Optimizing patellofemoral arthroplasty. Knee. 2008;15(5):339-347.
28. Leadbetter WB, Seyler TM, Ragland PS, Mont MA. Indications, contraindications, and pitfalls of patellofemoral arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(suppl 4):122-137.
29. Mertl P, Van FT, Bonhomme P, Vives P. Femoropatellar osteoarthritis treated by prosthesis. Retrospective study of 50 implants [in French]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 1997;83(8):712-718.
30. De Cloedt P, Legaye J, Lokietek W. Femoro-patellar prosthesis. A retrospective study of 45 consecutive cases with a follow-up of 3-12 years [in French]. Acta Orthop Belg. 1999;65(2):170-175.
31. Dahm DL, Al-Rayashi W, Dajani K, Shah JP, Levy BA, Stuart MJ. Patellofemoral arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty in patients with isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis. Am J Orthop. 2010;39(10):487-491.
32. Farr J, Arendt E, Dahm D, Daynes J. Patellofemoral arthroplasty in the athlete. Clin Sports Med. 2014;33(3):547-552.
Take-Home Points
- PFA improved knee function and pain scores in patients with isolated patellofemoral arthritis.
- The majority (84.2%) of patients undergoing PFA were female.
- Regardless of age or gender, 72.2% of patients returned to their desired preoperative activity after PFA, and 52.8% returned at the same or higher level.
- The rate of conversion from PFA to TKA was 6.3%.
- PFA is an alternative to TKA in active patients with isolated patellofemoral arthritis.
Compared with total knee arthroplasty (TKA), single-compartment knee arthroplasty may provide better physiologic function, faster recovery, and higher rates of return to activities in patients with unicompartmental knee disease.1-3 In 1955, McKeever4 introduced patellar arthroplasty for surgical management of isolated patellofemoral arthritis. In 1979, Lubinus5 improved on the technique and design by adding a femoral component. Since then, implants and techniques have been developed to effect better clinical outcomes. Patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) has many advantages over TKA in the treatment of patellofemoral arthritis. PFA is less invasive, requires shorter tourniquet times, has faster recovery, and spares the tibiofemoral compartment, leaving more native bone for potential conversion to TKA. Regarding activity and function, the resurfacing arthroplasty (vs TKA) allows maintenance of nearly normal knee kinematics.
Despite these advantages, the broader orthopedic surgery community has only cautiously accepted PFA. The procedure has high complication rates. Persistent instability, malalignment, wear, impingement, and tibiofemoral arthritis progression can occur after PFA.6 Although first-generation PFA prostheses often failed because of mechanical problems, loosening, maltracking, or instability,7 the most common indication for PFA revision has been, according to a recent large retrospective study,8 unexplained pain. More than 10 to 15 years after PFA, tibiofemoral arthritis may be the primary mechanism of failure.9 Nevertheless, compared with standard TKA for isolated patellofemoral arthritis, modern PFA does not have significantly different clinical outcomes, including complication and revision rates.6Numerous patient factors influence functional prognosis before and after knee arthroplasty, regardless of surgical technique and implant used. Age, comorbidities, athletic status, mental health, pain, functional limitations, excessive caution, “artificial joint”–related worries, and rehabilitation protocol all influence function.10 Return to activity and other quality-of-life indices are important aspects of postoperative patient satisfaction.
Methods
We conducted a retrospective cohort study to describe functional status after PFA for patellofemoral arthritis. We identified 48 consecutive PFAs (39 patients) performed by a team of 2 orthopedic surgeons (specialists in treating patellofemoral pathology) between 2009 and 2014.
Three validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were used to determine preoperative (baseline) and postoperative functional status: Kujala score, Lysholm score, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score. The Kujala score is a measure of knee function specific to the patellofemoral joint; the Lysholm score focuses on activities related to the knee; and the IKDC score is a general measure of knee function. Charts were reviewed to extract patients’ clinical data, including preoperative outcome scores, medical history, physical examination data, intraoperative characteristics, and postoperative course. By telephone, patients answered questions about their postoperative clinical course and completed final follow-up questionnaires. They were also asked which sporting or fitness activity they had preferred before surgery and whether they were able to return to that activity after surgery.
Statistical analysis included the study population’s descriptive statistics. Means and SDs were reported for continuous variables, and frequencies and percentages were reported for categorical variables. Paired t tests were used to analyze changes in PROM scores. For comparison of differences between characteristics of patients who did and did not return to their previous activity level, independent-samples t tests were used for continuous variables. Chi-square tests or Fisher exact tests were used to compare discrete variables. Statistical significance was set at P ≤ .05. All analyses were performed with SPSS Version 22.0 (IBM).
Results
Postoperative knee-specific PROM scores and general pain score (reported by the patient on a scale of 0-10) were statistically significantly improved (P < .001 for all measures) over preoperative scores (Table 4).
After surgery, 1 patient (2.6%) developed a pulmonary embolus, which was successfully identified and treated without incident. Five patients (10.4%) had another surgery on the same knee. Three patients (6.3%) underwent conversion to TKA: 1 for continued symptoms in the setting of newly diagnosed inflammatory arthritis, 1 for arthritic pain, and 1 for patellofemoral instability. Two patients (4.2%) underwent irrigation and débridement: 1 for hematoma and 1 for suspected (culture-negative) infection.
Discussion
Historically, the literature evaluating knee arthroplasty outcomes has focused on implant survivorship, pain relief, and patient satisfaction. Since the advent of partial knee arthroplasty options, more attention has been given to functional outcomes and return to activities after single-compartment knee resurfacing. TKA remains the gold standard by which newer, less invasive surgical options are measured. In a large prospective study, 97% of patients (age, >55 years) who had TKA for patellofemoral arthritis reported good or excellent clinical results, the majority being excellent.11 Post-TKA functional status and activity levels may not be rated as highly. After TKA, many patients switch to lower impact sports or reduce or stop their participation in sports.12 A small study of competitive adult tennis players found high levels of post-TKA satisfaction, ability to resume playing tennis, pain relief, and increased or continued enjoyment in playing.13 In a study of 355 patients (417 knees) who had underwent TKA, improvement in Knee Society function score showed a moderate correlation to an increase in weighted activity score (R = 0.362).14
Unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) is becoming a popular treatment option for single-compartment tibiofemoral arthritis. A systematic review of 18 original studies of patients with knee osteoarthritis found that overall return to sports varied from 36% to 89% after TKA and from 75% to 100% after UKA.15 In another study, return-to-sports rates were similar for UKA (87%) and TKA (83%); the only significant difference was UKA patients returned quicker.16 The authors of a large meta-analysis conceded that significant heterogeneity of data prevented them from drawing definitive conclusions, but UKA patients seemed to return to low- and high-impact sports 2 weeks faster than their TKA counterparts.10 Overall, UKA and TKA patients (age, 51-71 years) had comparable return-to-sports rates at an average of 4 years after surgery.10 A smaller study corroborated faster return to sports for UKA over TKA patients and also found that, compared with TKA patients, UKA patients participated in sports more regularly and over a longer period.17 On the other hand, Walton and colleagues18 found similar return-to-sports rates but higher frequency of and satisfaction with sports participation in UKA over TKA patients.
A large retrospective study found no differences in rates of return to sports after TKA, UKA, patellar resurfacing, hip resurfacing, and total hip arthroplasty.19 Pain was the most common barrier to return. UKA patients who returned to sports tended to be younger than those who did not.20 Naal and colleagues3 found that 95% of UKA patients returned to their activities—hiking, walking, cycling, and swimming being most common. Although 90.3% of patients said surgery maintained or improved their ability to participate in sports, participation in high-impact sports (eg, running) decreased after surgery.
Outcomes of PFA vary because of evolving patient selection, implant design, surgical technique, and return-to-activity expectations.21,22 Most PFA outcome studies focus on implant survivorship, complication rates, and postoperative knee scores.23-28 PFA studies focused on return to activities are limited. Kooijman and colleagues7 and Mertl and colleagues29 reported good or excellent clinical results of PFA in 86% and 82% of patients, respectively. Neither study included a comprehensive analysis of postoperative functional status. Similarly, De Cloedt and colleagues30 reported good PFA outcomes in 43% of patients with degenerative joint disease and in 83% of patients with instability. Specific activity status was not described. Dahm and colleagues31 and Farr and colleagues32 suggested postoperative pain resolution motivates some PFA patients not only to resume preoperative activities but to start participating in new, higher level activities after pain has subsided. However, the studies did not examine the characteristics of patients who returned to baseline activities and did not examine return-to-sports rates.
Study Strengths and Limitations
Our study focused on the PFA patient population of a surgical team of 2 fellowship-trained orthopedic surgeons (specialists in treating patellofemoral pathology). Although generalization of our findings to other surgeons and different implants may be limited, the study design standardized treatment in a way that makes these findings more reliable. The 100% follow-up strengthens these findings as well. Last, though the patient population was relatively small, it was consistent with or larger than the PFA patient groups studied previously.
Conclusion
In this study, PROM and pain scores were significantly improved after PFA. That almost 75% of patients returned to their preferred activities and >50% of patients returned at the same or a higher activity level provides useful information for preoperative discussions with patients who want to remain active after PFA. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate the longevity and durability of PFA, particularly in active patients.
Take-Home Points
- PFA improved knee function and pain scores in patients with isolated patellofemoral arthritis.
- The majority (84.2%) of patients undergoing PFA were female.
- Regardless of age or gender, 72.2% of patients returned to their desired preoperative activity after PFA, and 52.8% returned at the same or higher level.
- The rate of conversion from PFA to TKA was 6.3%.
- PFA is an alternative to TKA in active patients with isolated patellofemoral arthritis.
Compared with total knee arthroplasty (TKA), single-compartment knee arthroplasty may provide better physiologic function, faster recovery, and higher rates of return to activities in patients with unicompartmental knee disease.1-3 In 1955, McKeever4 introduced patellar arthroplasty for surgical management of isolated patellofemoral arthritis. In 1979, Lubinus5 improved on the technique and design by adding a femoral component. Since then, implants and techniques have been developed to effect better clinical outcomes. Patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) has many advantages over TKA in the treatment of patellofemoral arthritis. PFA is less invasive, requires shorter tourniquet times, has faster recovery, and spares the tibiofemoral compartment, leaving more native bone for potential conversion to TKA. Regarding activity and function, the resurfacing arthroplasty (vs TKA) allows maintenance of nearly normal knee kinematics.
Despite these advantages, the broader orthopedic surgery community has only cautiously accepted PFA. The procedure has high complication rates. Persistent instability, malalignment, wear, impingement, and tibiofemoral arthritis progression can occur after PFA.6 Although first-generation PFA prostheses often failed because of mechanical problems, loosening, maltracking, or instability,7 the most common indication for PFA revision has been, according to a recent large retrospective study,8 unexplained pain. More than 10 to 15 years after PFA, tibiofemoral arthritis may be the primary mechanism of failure.9 Nevertheless, compared with standard TKA for isolated patellofemoral arthritis, modern PFA does not have significantly different clinical outcomes, including complication and revision rates.6Numerous patient factors influence functional prognosis before and after knee arthroplasty, regardless of surgical technique and implant used. Age, comorbidities, athletic status, mental health, pain, functional limitations, excessive caution, “artificial joint”–related worries, and rehabilitation protocol all influence function.10 Return to activity and other quality-of-life indices are important aspects of postoperative patient satisfaction.
Methods
We conducted a retrospective cohort study to describe functional status after PFA for patellofemoral arthritis. We identified 48 consecutive PFAs (39 patients) performed by a team of 2 orthopedic surgeons (specialists in treating patellofemoral pathology) between 2009 and 2014.
Three validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were used to determine preoperative (baseline) and postoperative functional status: Kujala score, Lysholm score, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score. The Kujala score is a measure of knee function specific to the patellofemoral joint; the Lysholm score focuses on activities related to the knee; and the IKDC score is a general measure of knee function. Charts were reviewed to extract patients’ clinical data, including preoperative outcome scores, medical history, physical examination data, intraoperative characteristics, and postoperative course. By telephone, patients answered questions about their postoperative clinical course and completed final follow-up questionnaires. They were also asked which sporting or fitness activity they had preferred before surgery and whether they were able to return to that activity after surgery.
Statistical analysis included the study population’s descriptive statistics. Means and SDs were reported for continuous variables, and frequencies and percentages were reported for categorical variables. Paired t tests were used to analyze changes in PROM scores. For comparison of differences between characteristics of patients who did and did not return to their previous activity level, independent-samples t tests were used for continuous variables. Chi-square tests or Fisher exact tests were used to compare discrete variables. Statistical significance was set at P ≤ .05. All analyses were performed with SPSS Version 22.0 (IBM).
Results
Postoperative knee-specific PROM scores and general pain score (reported by the patient on a scale of 0-10) were statistically significantly improved (P < .001 for all measures) over preoperative scores (Table 4).
After surgery, 1 patient (2.6%) developed a pulmonary embolus, which was successfully identified and treated without incident. Five patients (10.4%) had another surgery on the same knee. Three patients (6.3%) underwent conversion to TKA: 1 for continued symptoms in the setting of newly diagnosed inflammatory arthritis, 1 for arthritic pain, and 1 for patellofemoral instability. Two patients (4.2%) underwent irrigation and débridement: 1 for hematoma and 1 for suspected (culture-negative) infection.
Discussion
Historically, the literature evaluating knee arthroplasty outcomes has focused on implant survivorship, pain relief, and patient satisfaction. Since the advent of partial knee arthroplasty options, more attention has been given to functional outcomes and return to activities after single-compartment knee resurfacing. TKA remains the gold standard by which newer, less invasive surgical options are measured. In a large prospective study, 97% of patients (age, >55 years) who had TKA for patellofemoral arthritis reported good or excellent clinical results, the majority being excellent.11 Post-TKA functional status and activity levels may not be rated as highly. After TKA, many patients switch to lower impact sports or reduce or stop their participation in sports.12 A small study of competitive adult tennis players found high levels of post-TKA satisfaction, ability to resume playing tennis, pain relief, and increased or continued enjoyment in playing.13 In a study of 355 patients (417 knees) who had underwent TKA, improvement in Knee Society function score showed a moderate correlation to an increase in weighted activity score (R = 0.362).14
Unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) is becoming a popular treatment option for single-compartment tibiofemoral arthritis. A systematic review of 18 original studies of patients with knee osteoarthritis found that overall return to sports varied from 36% to 89% after TKA and from 75% to 100% after UKA.15 In another study, return-to-sports rates were similar for UKA (87%) and TKA (83%); the only significant difference was UKA patients returned quicker.16 The authors of a large meta-analysis conceded that significant heterogeneity of data prevented them from drawing definitive conclusions, but UKA patients seemed to return to low- and high-impact sports 2 weeks faster than their TKA counterparts.10 Overall, UKA and TKA patients (age, 51-71 years) had comparable return-to-sports rates at an average of 4 years after surgery.10 A smaller study corroborated faster return to sports for UKA over TKA patients and also found that, compared with TKA patients, UKA patients participated in sports more regularly and over a longer period.17 On the other hand, Walton and colleagues18 found similar return-to-sports rates but higher frequency of and satisfaction with sports participation in UKA over TKA patients.
A large retrospective study found no differences in rates of return to sports after TKA, UKA, patellar resurfacing, hip resurfacing, and total hip arthroplasty.19 Pain was the most common barrier to return. UKA patients who returned to sports tended to be younger than those who did not.20 Naal and colleagues3 found that 95% of UKA patients returned to their activities—hiking, walking, cycling, and swimming being most common. Although 90.3% of patients said surgery maintained or improved their ability to participate in sports, participation in high-impact sports (eg, running) decreased after surgery.
Outcomes of PFA vary because of evolving patient selection, implant design, surgical technique, and return-to-activity expectations.21,22 Most PFA outcome studies focus on implant survivorship, complication rates, and postoperative knee scores.23-28 PFA studies focused on return to activities are limited. Kooijman and colleagues7 and Mertl and colleagues29 reported good or excellent clinical results of PFA in 86% and 82% of patients, respectively. Neither study included a comprehensive analysis of postoperative functional status. Similarly, De Cloedt and colleagues30 reported good PFA outcomes in 43% of patients with degenerative joint disease and in 83% of patients with instability. Specific activity status was not described. Dahm and colleagues31 and Farr and colleagues32 suggested postoperative pain resolution motivates some PFA patients not only to resume preoperative activities but to start participating in new, higher level activities after pain has subsided. However, the studies did not examine the characteristics of patients who returned to baseline activities and did not examine return-to-sports rates.
Study Strengths and Limitations
Our study focused on the PFA patient population of a surgical team of 2 fellowship-trained orthopedic surgeons (specialists in treating patellofemoral pathology). Although generalization of our findings to other surgeons and different implants may be limited, the study design standardized treatment in a way that makes these findings more reliable. The 100% follow-up strengthens these findings as well. Last, though the patient population was relatively small, it was consistent with or larger than the PFA patient groups studied previously.
Conclusion
In this study, PROM and pain scores were significantly improved after PFA. That almost 75% of patients returned to their preferred activities and >50% of patients returned at the same or a higher activity level provides useful information for preoperative discussions with patients who want to remain active after PFA. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate the longevity and durability of PFA, particularly in active patients.
1. Laurencin CT, Zelicof SB, Scott RD, Ewald FC. Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in the same patient. A comparative study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991;(273):151-156.
2. Kozinn SC, Scott R. Unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989;71(1):145-150.
3. Naal FD, Fischer M, Preuss A, et al. Return to sports and recreational activity after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(10):1688-1695.
4. McKeever DC. Patellar prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1955;37(5):1074-1084.
5. Lubinus HH. Patella glide bearing total replacement. Orthopedics. 1979;2(2):119-127.
6. Dy CJ, Franco N, Ma Y, Mazumdar M, McCarthy MM, Gonzalez Della Valle A. Complications after patello-femoral versus total knee replacement in the treatment of isolated patello-femoral osteoarthritis. A meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(11):2174-2190.
7. Kooijman HJ, Driessen AP, van Horn JR. Long-term results of patellofemoral arthroplasty. A report of 56 arthroplasties with 17 years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003;85(6):836-840.
8. Baker PN, Refaie R, Gregg P, Deehan D. Revision following patello-femoral arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(10):2047-2053.
9. Lonner JH, Bloomfield MR. The clinical outcome of patellofemoral arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 2013;44(3):271-280.
10. Papalia R, Del Buono A, Zampogna B, Maffulli N, Denaro V. Sport activity following joint arthroplasty: a systematic review. Br Med Bull. 2012;101:81-103.
11. Mont MA, Haas S, Mullick T, Hungerford DS. Total knee arthroplasty for patellofemoral arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84(11):1977-1981.
12. Chatterji U, Ashworth MJ, Lewis PL, Dobson PJ. Effect of total knee arthroplasty on recreational and sporting activity. ANZ J Surg. 2005;75(6):405-408.
13. Mont MA, Rajadhyaksha AD, Marxen JL, Silberstein CE, Hungerford DS. Tennis after total knee arthroplasty. Am J Sports Med. 2002;30(2):163-166.
14. Marker DR, Mont MA, Seyler TM, McGrath MS, Kolisek FR, Bonutti PM. Does functional improvement following TKA correlate to increased sports activity? Iowa Orthop J. 2009;29:11-16.
15. Witjes S, Gouttebarge V, Kuijer PP, van Geenen RC, Poolman RW, Kerkhoffs GM. Return to sports and physical activity after total and unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2016;46(2):269-292.
16. Ho JC, Stitzlein RN, Green CJ, Stoner T, Froimson MI. Return to sports activity following UKA and TKA. J Knee Surg. 2016;29(3):254-259.
17. Hopper GP, Leach WJ. Participation in sporting activities following knee replacement: total versus unicompartmental. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008;16(10):973-979.
18. Walton NP, Jahromi I, Lewis PL, Dobson PJ, Angel KR, Campbell DG. Patient-perceived outcomes and return to sport and work: TKA versus mini-incision unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. 2006;19(2):112-116.
19. Wylde V, Blom A, Dieppe P, Hewlett S, Learmonth I. Return to sport after joint replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90(7):920-923.
20. Pietschmann MF, Wohlleb L, Weber P, et al. Sports activities after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty Oxford III—what can we expect? Int Orthop. 2013;37(1):31-37.
21. Lonner JH. Patellofemoral arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2010;33(9):653.
22. Lustig S. Patellofemoral arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014;100(1 suppl):S35-S43.
23. Krajca-Radcliffe JB, Coker TP. Patellofemoral arthroplasty. A 2- to 18-year followup study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;(330):143-151.
24. Mihalko WM, Boachie-Adjei Y, Spang JT, Fulkerson JP, Arendt EA, Saleh KJ. Controversies and techniques in the surgical management of patellofemoral arthritis. Instr Course Lect. 2008;57:365-380.
25. Lonner JH. Patellofemoral arthroplasty: pros, cons, and design considerations. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;(428):158-165.
26. Lonner JH. Patellofemoral arthroplasty: the impact of design on outcomes. Orthop Clin North Am. 2008;39(3):347-354.
27. Farr J 2nd, Barrett D. Optimizing patellofemoral arthroplasty. Knee. 2008;15(5):339-347.
28. Leadbetter WB, Seyler TM, Ragland PS, Mont MA. Indications, contraindications, and pitfalls of patellofemoral arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(suppl 4):122-137.
29. Mertl P, Van FT, Bonhomme P, Vives P. Femoropatellar osteoarthritis treated by prosthesis. Retrospective study of 50 implants [in French]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 1997;83(8):712-718.
30. De Cloedt P, Legaye J, Lokietek W. Femoro-patellar prosthesis. A retrospective study of 45 consecutive cases with a follow-up of 3-12 years [in French]. Acta Orthop Belg. 1999;65(2):170-175.
31. Dahm DL, Al-Rayashi W, Dajani K, Shah JP, Levy BA, Stuart MJ. Patellofemoral arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty in patients with isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis. Am J Orthop. 2010;39(10):487-491.
32. Farr J, Arendt E, Dahm D, Daynes J. Patellofemoral arthroplasty in the athlete. Clin Sports Med. 2014;33(3):547-552.
1. Laurencin CT, Zelicof SB, Scott RD, Ewald FC. Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in the same patient. A comparative study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991;(273):151-156.
2. Kozinn SC, Scott R. Unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989;71(1):145-150.
3. Naal FD, Fischer M, Preuss A, et al. Return to sports and recreational activity after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(10):1688-1695.
4. McKeever DC. Patellar prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1955;37(5):1074-1084.
5. Lubinus HH. Patella glide bearing total replacement. Orthopedics. 1979;2(2):119-127.
6. Dy CJ, Franco N, Ma Y, Mazumdar M, McCarthy MM, Gonzalez Della Valle A. Complications after patello-femoral versus total knee replacement in the treatment of isolated patello-femoral osteoarthritis. A meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(11):2174-2190.
7. Kooijman HJ, Driessen AP, van Horn JR. Long-term results of patellofemoral arthroplasty. A report of 56 arthroplasties with 17 years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003;85(6):836-840.
8. Baker PN, Refaie R, Gregg P, Deehan D. Revision following patello-femoral arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(10):2047-2053.
9. Lonner JH, Bloomfield MR. The clinical outcome of patellofemoral arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 2013;44(3):271-280.
10. Papalia R, Del Buono A, Zampogna B, Maffulli N, Denaro V. Sport activity following joint arthroplasty: a systematic review. Br Med Bull. 2012;101:81-103.
11. Mont MA, Haas S, Mullick T, Hungerford DS. Total knee arthroplasty for patellofemoral arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84(11):1977-1981.
12. Chatterji U, Ashworth MJ, Lewis PL, Dobson PJ. Effect of total knee arthroplasty on recreational and sporting activity. ANZ J Surg. 2005;75(6):405-408.
13. Mont MA, Rajadhyaksha AD, Marxen JL, Silberstein CE, Hungerford DS. Tennis after total knee arthroplasty. Am J Sports Med. 2002;30(2):163-166.
14. Marker DR, Mont MA, Seyler TM, McGrath MS, Kolisek FR, Bonutti PM. Does functional improvement following TKA correlate to increased sports activity? Iowa Orthop J. 2009;29:11-16.
15. Witjes S, Gouttebarge V, Kuijer PP, van Geenen RC, Poolman RW, Kerkhoffs GM. Return to sports and physical activity after total and unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2016;46(2):269-292.
16. Ho JC, Stitzlein RN, Green CJ, Stoner T, Froimson MI. Return to sports activity following UKA and TKA. J Knee Surg. 2016;29(3):254-259.
17. Hopper GP, Leach WJ. Participation in sporting activities following knee replacement: total versus unicompartmental. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008;16(10):973-979.
18. Walton NP, Jahromi I, Lewis PL, Dobson PJ, Angel KR, Campbell DG. Patient-perceived outcomes and return to sport and work: TKA versus mini-incision unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. 2006;19(2):112-116.
19. Wylde V, Blom A, Dieppe P, Hewlett S, Learmonth I. Return to sport after joint replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90(7):920-923.
20. Pietschmann MF, Wohlleb L, Weber P, et al. Sports activities after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty Oxford III—what can we expect? Int Orthop. 2013;37(1):31-37.
21. Lonner JH. Patellofemoral arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2010;33(9):653.
22. Lustig S. Patellofemoral arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014;100(1 suppl):S35-S43.
23. Krajca-Radcliffe JB, Coker TP. Patellofemoral arthroplasty. A 2- to 18-year followup study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;(330):143-151.
24. Mihalko WM, Boachie-Adjei Y, Spang JT, Fulkerson JP, Arendt EA, Saleh KJ. Controversies and techniques in the surgical management of patellofemoral arthritis. Instr Course Lect. 2008;57:365-380.
25. Lonner JH. Patellofemoral arthroplasty: pros, cons, and design considerations. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;(428):158-165.
26. Lonner JH. Patellofemoral arthroplasty: the impact of design on outcomes. Orthop Clin North Am. 2008;39(3):347-354.
27. Farr J 2nd, Barrett D. Optimizing patellofemoral arthroplasty. Knee. 2008;15(5):339-347.
28. Leadbetter WB, Seyler TM, Ragland PS, Mont MA. Indications, contraindications, and pitfalls of patellofemoral arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(suppl 4):122-137.
29. Mertl P, Van FT, Bonhomme P, Vives P. Femoropatellar osteoarthritis treated by prosthesis. Retrospective study of 50 implants [in French]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 1997;83(8):712-718.
30. De Cloedt P, Legaye J, Lokietek W. Femoro-patellar prosthesis. A retrospective study of 45 consecutive cases with a follow-up of 3-12 years [in French]. Acta Orthop Belg. 1999;65(2):170-175.
31. Dahm DL, Al-Rayashi W, Dajani K, Shah JP, Levy BA, Stuart MJ. Patellofemoral arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty in patients with isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis. Am J Orthop. 2010;39(10):487-491.
32. Farr J, Arendt E, Dahm D, Daynes J. Patellofemoral arthroplasty in the athlete. Clin Sports Med. 2014;33(3):547-552.