Medial meniscus root tears: mechanics, management, and techniques.

Journal and index pages often block iframe embedding. This reader keeps the evidence details in Orthonotes and leaves the source page one click away.

Abstract

Conflict of interest statement: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://aoj.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/aoj-25-30/coif). The series “The Medial Knee at Risk” was commissioned by the editorial office without any funding or sponsorship. A.J.T. has received hospitality payments from Stryker, Arthrex, Medical Device Business Services, and Zimmer Biomet Holdings. A.K. has received consulting fees from Arthrex, JRF, Vericel, and Responsive Arthroscopy; royalties from Arthrex and Responsive Arthroscopy; grants from DJO and Exactech; and research support from Aesculap/B.Braun, Ceterix, and Histogenics. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare. 18. Iowa Orthop J. 2010;30:131-40. High tibial osteotomy versus unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for medial compartment arthrosis of the knee: a review of the literature. Dettoni F(1), Bonasia DE, Castoldi F, Bruzzone M, Blonna D, Rossi R. Author information: (1)Mauriziano Umberto I Hospital, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of Torino Medical School, Largo Turati 62,10128, Torino, Italy. federicodettoni@tin.it This review examined the literature regarding high tibial osteotomy (HTO) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), focusing on indications, survivorship and functional outcomes of the two procedures, as well as revision to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) after failed HTO or UKA. HTO and UKA share the same indications in selected cases of medial unicompartmental knee arthrosis. These indications include patients who are: 1) 55 to 65 years old; 2) moderately active; 3) non-obese; 4) have mild varus malalignment; 5) no joint instability; 6) good range of motion; and 7) moderate unicompartmental arthrosis. Few studies are available in the literature comparing the outcomes of HTO and UKA. Those few studies show slightly better results for UKA in terms of survivorship and functional outcome. Nevertheless, the differences are not remarkable, the study methods are not homogeneous and most of the papers report on closing wedge HTOs. For these reasons, no definitive conclusions can be drawn. TKA represents the revision option for both treatments and yields satisfactory functional outcomes and survivorship. Whether revision HTO and UKA-to-TKA perform any worse than primary TKA is still controversial. With the correct indications, both treatments produce durable and predictable outcomes in the treatment of medial unicompartmental arthrosis of the knee. There is no evidence of superior results of one treatment over the other. PMCID: PMC2958284