A comparative study of single-stage bilateral vs. unilateral medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty on complications, clinical outcomes, and costs.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Frontiers in Surgery Pub Date : 2024-10-02 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fsurg.2024.1470421
Kao-Chang Tu, Han-Ting Shih, Shun-Ping Wang, Kun-Hui Chen
{"title":"A comparative study of single-stage bilateral vs. unilateral medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty on complications, clinical outcomes, and costs.","authors":"Kao-Chang Tu, Han-Ting Shih, Shun-Ping Wang, Kun-Hui Chen","doi":"10.3389/fsurg.2024.1470421","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the short-term recovery and cost-effectiveness of bilateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) compared to staged unilateral UKA. The study analyzed postoperative pain scores, medical costs, and complications in patients with knee osteoarthritis who underwent these procedures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 226 patients who received either unilateral UKA (Group A, <i>n</i> = 170) or bilateral UKA (Group B, <i>n</i> = 56) using the mobile-bearing UKA were included in the study. Patient demographics, surgical details, postoperative pain scores, knee range of motion, length of hospital stay, self-controlled analgesic use, total medical costs, and complications were retrospectively collected from medical records.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The demographic characteristics were comparable between the groups. Group B had a longer surgical time and higher medical costs than Group A. However, there were no significant differences in hospital stay, pain scores, or knee range of motion between the two groups. Complications were infrequent and not significantly different. Insert dislocation and loosening were the most common complications. Patient-controlled analgesia effectively reduced pain scores in Group A but not in Group B.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Bilateral UKA does not significantly affect hospital stay, postoperative pain, or complications compared to unilateral UKA. Although bilateral UKA requires longer surgical time and incurs higher costs, it offers the potential benefit of reducing anesthesia-related complications and overall health insurance expenditures. This study recommends bilateral UKA as a suitable option for patients with bilateral knee osteoarthritis, given its comparable short-term outcomes and potential cost-saving advantages.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>III.</p>","PeriodicalId":12564,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Surgery","volume":"11 ","pages":"1470421"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11480034/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2024.1470421","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the short-term recovery and cost-effectiveness of bilateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) compared to staged unilateral UKA. The study analyzed postoperative pain scores, medical costs, and complications in patients with knee osteoarthritis who underwent these procedures.

Methods: A total of 226 patients who received either unilateral UKA (Group A, n = 170) or bilateral UKA (Group B, n = 56) using the mobile-bearing UKA were included in the study. Patient demographics, surgical details, postoperative pain scores, knee range of motion, length of hospital stay, self-controlled analgesic use, total medical costs, and complications were retrospectively collected from medical records.

Results: The demographic characteristics were comparable between the groups. Group B had a longer surgical time and higher medical costs than Group A. However, there were no significant differences in hospital stay, pain scores, or knee range of motion between the two groups. Complications were infrequent and not significantly different. Insert dislocation and loosening were the most common complications. Patient-controlled analgesia effectively reduced pain scores in Group A but not in Group B.

Conclusion: Bilateral UKA does not significantly affect hospital stay, postoperative pain, or complications compared to unilateral UKA. Although bilateral UKA requires longer surgical time and incurs higher costs, it offers the potential benefit of reducing anesthesia-related complications and overall health insurance expenditures. This study recommends bilateral UKA as a suitable option for patients with bilateral knee osteoarthritis, given its comparable short-term outcomes and potential cost-saving advantages.

Level of evidence: III.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
单阶段双侧与单侧内侧单室膝关节置换术在并发症、临床效果和成本方面的比较研究。
背景:这项回顾性研究旨在评估双侧单室膝关节置换术(UKA)与分期单侧UKA相比的短期恢复情况和成本效益。研究分析了接受这些手术的膝关节骨性关节炎患者的术后疼痛评分、医疗费用和并发症:共有226名患者接受了单侧UKA(A组,n=170)或双侧UKA(B组,n=56)。研究人员从病历中回顾性收集了患者的人口统计学特征、手术细节、术后疼痛评分、膝关节活动范围、住院时间、自控镇痛药使用情况、医疗总费用和并发症:结果:两组的人口统计学特征相当。然而,两组在住院时间、疼痛评分和膝关节活动范围方面没有明显差异。并发症并不常见,且无明显差异。假体脱位和松动是最常见的并发症。患者自控镇痛可有效降低A组患者的疼痛评分,但B组患者的疼痛评分则没有降低:结论:与单侧UKA相比,双侧UKA对住院时间、术后疼痛或并发症没有明显影响。虽然双侧UKA需要更长的手术时间和更高的费用,但它能减少麻醉相关并发症和总体医疗保险支出。鉴于双侧UKA具有可比的短期疗效和潜在的成本节约优势,本研究建议双侧UKA作为双侧膝关节骨性关节炎患者的合适选择:证据等级:III。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Surgery
Frontiers in Surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
1872
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Evidence of surgical interventions go back to prehistoric times. Since then, the field of surgery has developed into a complex array of specialties and procedures, particularly with the advent of microsurgery, lasers and minimally invasive techniques. The advanced skills now required from surgeons has led to ever increasing specialization, though these still share important fundamental principles. Frontiers in Surgery is the umbrella journal representing the publication interests of all surgical specialties. It is divided into several “Specialty Sections” listed below. All these sections have their own Specialty Chief Editor, Editorial Board and homepage, but all articles carry the citation Frontiers in Surgery. Frontiers in Surgery calls upon medical professionals and scientists from all surgical specialties to publish their experimental and clinical studies in this journal. By assembling all surgical specialties, which nonetheless retain their independence, under the common umbrella of Frontiers in Surgery, a powerful publication venue is created. Since there is often overlap and common ground between the different surgical specialties, assembly of all surgical disciplines into a single journal will foster a collaborative dialogue amongst the surgical community. This means that publications, which are also of interest to other surgical specialties, will reach a wider audience and have greater impact. The aim of this multidisciplinary journal is to create a discussion and knowledge platform of advances and research findings in surgical practice today to continuously improve clinical management of patients and foster innovation in this field.
期刊最新文献
Innovative vaginal manipulator technique vs. traditional method for vaginal fornix deployment in robotic sacrocolpopexy. Open laminectomy vs. minimally invasive laminectomy for lumbar spinal stenosis: a review. Unilateral biportal endoscopic spine surgery: a meta-analysis unveiling the learning curve and clinical benefits. Compare three deep learning-based artificial intelligence models for classification of calcified lumbar disc herniation: a multicenter diagnostic study. Ureteroinguinal hernia: an added advantage for laparoscopy in the management of inguinal hernia-a case report.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1