A longterm prospective follow-up study of resurfacing miniprosthesis suitable for patients above sixtyfive years with localized cartilage lesions or early osteoarthritis in the knee

Purpose The aim of the study was to investigate the long-term outcomes of the Focal Femoral Condyle Resurfacing Prosthesis for treatment of localized cartilage lesion in patients > 65 years. Methods This was a prospective case series study. Non-reopererated patients initially treated with resurfacing condylar miniprothesis (HemiCAP/UniCAP) were evaluated clinically and radiographically at 7–10 years follow-up (mean 9 years). The clinical examination included the Knee Society Score (KSS) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain score and EQ5D. The radiographic examination included the Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grade for investigate of OA progression. A comparison analysis of the preoperative and follow-up subjective outcome data and a Kaplan-Meier implant survival analysis were performed. Results Twenty-three patients were included in the study (9 HemiCAP and 14 UniCAP). There were seven revisions (one HemiCap and six UniCap respectively) (30%) and three patients had died. Follow-up examinations were performed on 10 patients. When comparing follow-up with the preoperative state, there were significant increases in the KSS objective (50.0 ± 8.3) vs. 90.0 ± 6.3)) and KSS function (45.0 ± 11.7) vs. 85.0 ± 4.7)) scores, a decrease in the pain VAS score (7.0 ± 0.9) vs. (4.0 ± 1.9)). Radiographic evaluation demonstrated increase in osteoarthritis development with a KL medial score (2.0 ± 0.6) and KL lateral score (1.4 ± 0.6) vs. (2.0 ± 0.9)).The EQ5D-score was 86 ± 8.4 and patients Health-score was 85 ± 18). Conclusions Resurfacing implant treatment for early OA in patients above 65 years can require revision to knee arthroplasty in 30% of patients. But in patients that are not revised long-term improvements in subjective clinical outcome was demonstrated. This suggests that even elderly patients with isolated cartilage lesions or early OA might benefit from the limited invasive resurfacing implant treatment. Level of evidence IV