INTRODUCTION:
The role of bicompartmental knee arthroplasty (BKA) in the treatment of medial patellofemoral osteoarthritis (MPFOA) has been debated by orthopaedic surgeons for years. The BKA is a cruciate ligament retaining prosthesis designed to mimic the kinematics of the native knee that requires resurfacing of only two knee compartments. In this study, we aim to assess the patient recorded outcome measures (PROMs), range of motion (ROM), perioperative morbidity, and implant revision rate in patients undergoing BKA and compare them to those undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for bicompartmental knee osteoarthritis (OA).

PATIENTS AND METHODS:
We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Statement (PRISMA). Articles from any country and written in any language were considered. We included all randomized control trials and retrospective cohort studies examining BKA versus TKA for bicompartmental knee OA. The primary outcome measure was knee society score (KSS) at one year and the secondary outcome measures were Oxford knee score (OKS) and short-form survey (SF-)12 at six and twelve months.

RESULTS:
We included five studies in our meta-analysis. In terms of OKS, KSS, and SF-12, our meta-analysis suggests better short-term results for the TKA compared with the BKA. TKA was also associated with a shorter operative time and a lower revision rate. The BKA implant did however result in marginally less intraoperative blood loss and slightly better post-operative ROM.

CONCLUSIONS:
BKA did not prove to be an equivalent alternative to TKA in bicompartmental knee OA. It was associated with inferior KSS, OKS, and SF-12 at short-term follow-up and a higher revision rate.





Polls results
1

On a scale of 1 to 10, rate how much this article will change your clinical practice?

NO change
BIG change
0% Article relates to my practice (0/0)
0% Article does not relate to my practice (0/0)
0% Undecided (0/0)
2

Will this article lead to more cost-effective healthcare?

0% Yes (0/0)
0% No (0/0)
0% Undecided (0/0)
3

Was this article biased? (commercial or personal)

0% Yes (0/0)
0% No (0/0)
0% Undecided (0/0)
4

What level of evidence do you think this article is?

0% Level 1 (0/0)
0% Level 2 (0/0)
0% Level 3 (0/0)
0% Level 4 (0/0)
0% Level 5 (0/0)