Whether the Partial Knee Arthroplasty is Worthwhile: Estimation of Orthopedic Surgeons from Large Arthroplasty Center

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Background. Despite several proven advantages of the partial knee arthroplasty (PKA) over the total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in selected patients with osteoarthritis (OA) or osteonecrosis (ON), there is still no consensus regarding the feasibility of this procedure among practitioners all over the world. The purpose of the study — to perform comprehensive analysis of the preferences of knee surgeons, regarding the feasibility of partial arthroplasty for modern orthopedic practice. Materials and Methods. A special questionnaire was developed that includes 4 sections devoted to personal surgical experience, understanding of indications/contraindications to PKA, attitude to potential advantages and disadvantages, as well as the reasons limiting the use of this technology in the daily practice. Using the institutional register of knee arthroplasty there were identified 37 orthopedic surgeons who perform more than 20 knee replacements annually. All of them agreed to participate in the survey. All surgeons were men with average age 43.1 years (min — 31, max — 64, moda — 41, SD = 8.9). The total number of knee arthroplasties performed by all respondents during the last year was 3094 . Results. The surgeons divided into two groups: 17 (46%) performed PKA but majority did not (20 (54%)). The average age of the surgeons of the 1st group was less than in the 2nd one (41.8 and 44.1 years (p>0.05)). The surgeons from group 1 significantly often respond in a positive way regarding the advantages of PKA compared to TKA (p<0.01). The significant differences among surgical estimations regarding PKA noted in the questions related to the speed of rehabilitation (p<0.05), the achievement of the “forgotten knee” phenomenon (p<0.01) and the frequency of postoperative complications (p<0.01). There was a trend that the more often a surgeon utilized PKA, the more he believes in its advantages over TKA. Only 1 respondent consider PKA fully unreliable, and 6 surgeons reported that they are unfamiliar with surgical technique. Interestingly that all surgeons, except one in the second group, met right candidates for PKA in their daily practice. There was no correlation between the studied parameters and surgeons age, experience, as well as annual caseload. Conclusions. Every second surgeon (54%) who regularly performs knee replacement ignores PKA as a method of choice for selected patients with OA or ON despite evidence-based literature data even in a large orthopedic center. For PKA users among the most significant advantages of this approach there are the faster rehabilitation (p<0.05), ability to reach the “forgotten knee” (p<0.01), as well as lower incidence and severity of postoperative complications (p<0.01).

About the authors

Alexey S. Fil

Vreden National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics

Author for correspondence.
Email: filalekse@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8994-0984

Cand. Sci. (Med.)

Russian Federation, St. Petersburg

Alexandr P. Antipov

Vreden National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics

Email: a.p.antipov@ya.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9004-5952

врач-травматолог-ортопед травматолого-ортопедического отделения № 4

Russian Federation, St. Petersburg

Taras A. Kulyaba

Vreden National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics

Email: taraskuliaba@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3175-4756

Dr. Sci. (Med.)

Russian Federation, St. Petersburg

Nikolai N. Kornilov

Vreden National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics; Mechnikov North-Western State Medical University

Email: drkornilov@hotmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6905-7900

Dr. Sci. (Med.)

Russian Federation, St. Petersburg

References

  1. Корнилов Н.Н., Т.А. Куляба Т.А., Федоров Р.Э. Современные представления об одномыщелковом эндопротезировании в структуре хирургических методов лечения больных гонартрозом (обзор литературы). Травматология и ортопедия России. 2012;(1):113-120. doi: 10.21823/2311-2905-2012-0-1-138-144. Kornilov N.N., Kulyaba T.A., Phedorov R.E. [Recent view at unicompartmental knee arthroplasty among other surgical approaches to patients with knee osteoarthritis (review)]. Travmatologiya i ortopediya Rossii [Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia]. 2012;(1):113-120. (In Russian). doi: 10.21823/2311-2905-2012-0-1-138-144.
  2. Корнилов Н.Н., Куляба Т.А., Федоров Р.Э. Сравнительная оценка среднесрочных функциональных исходов одномыщелкового и тотального эндопротезирования коленного сустава с использованием различных балльных систем. Травматология и ортопедия России. 2012;(3):12-20. doi: 10.21823/2311-2905-2012--3-12-20. Kornilov N.N., Kulyaba T.A., Phedorov R.E. [Evaluation of midterm functional results after total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with different scoring systems]. Travmatologiya i ortopediya Rossii [Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia]. 2012;(3):12-20. (In Russian). doi: 10.21823/2311-2905-2012--3-12-20.
  3. Nice guideline «Joint replacement primary: hip, knee and shoulder». 2020. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng157.
  4. Violate B., Becker R., Kort N. EKA’s Survey Involves 1,000 European Knee Surgeons ESSKA Newsletter, May 2016:28. Available from: https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.esska.org/resource/resmgr/docs/newsletters/final_full_version/newsletter2016-05.pdf
  5. Arliani G.G., Júnior J.A., Angelini F.B., Ferlin F., Hernandes A.C., Astur Dda C., Cohen M. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: current perspectives and trends in brazil. Rev Bras Ortop. 2015;47(6):724-729. doi: 10.1016/S2255-4971(15)30029-X.
  6. Willis-Owen C.A., Brust K., Alsop H., Miraldo M., Cobb J.P. Unicondylar knee arthroplasty in the UK National Health Service: an analysis of candidacy, outcome and cost efficacy. Knee. 2009;16(6):473-478. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2009.04.006.
  7. Liddle A.D., Judge A., Pandit H., Murray D.W. Adverse outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee replacement in 101,330 matched patients: a study of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet. 2014;384(9952):1437-1445. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60419-0.
  8. Kozinn S.C., Scott R. Unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989;71(1):145-150.
  9. Becher C., Beckmann J., von Eisenhart-Rothe R., Hirschmann M., Holz J., Franz A. et al. Unicondylar Tibiofemoral Arthroplasty - Opinions of the Members of the German Knee Society (DKG) and the German Professional Association of Orthopaedic and Trauma Specialists (BVOU). Z Orthop Unfall. 2021;159(1):47-53. (English, German). doi: 10.1055/a-1015-6957.
  10. Surgeon opinions differ on UKA indications and revision rates compared to TKA. Orthopaedics Today. 2015. Available from: https://www.healio.com/orthopedics/knee/news/print/orthopaedics-today-europe/%7B274af22c-e7a4-4193-81bf-c729dcca55dd%7D/surgeon-opinions-differ-on-uka-indications-and-revision-rates-compared-to-tka?page=3).
  11. Murray D.W., Pandit H., Weston-Simons J.S., Jenkins C., Gill H.S., Lombardi A.V. et al. Does body mass index affect the outcome of unicompartmental knee replacement? Knee. 2013;20(6):461-465. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2012.09.017.
  12. Lum Z.C., Crawford D.A., Lombardi A.V. Jr., Hurst J.M., Morris M.J., Adams J.B., Berend K.R. Early comparative outcomes of unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty in severely obese patients. Knee. 2018;25(1):161-166. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2017.10.006.
  13. W-Dahl A., Robertsson O., Lidgren L. Surgery for knee osteoarthritis in younger patients. Acta Orthop. 2010;81(2):161-164. doi: 10.3109/17453670903413186.
  14. Wiik A.V., Manning V., Strachan R.K., Amis A.A., Cobb J.P. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty enables near normal gait at higher speeds, unlike total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(9 Suppl):176-178. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.07.036.
  15. Hopper G.P., Leach W.J. Participation in sporting activities following knee replacement: total versus unicompartmental. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008;16(10):973-979. doi: 10.1007/s00167-008-0596-9.
  16. Pandit H., Jenkins C., Gill H.S., Barker K., Dodd C.A., Murray D.W. Minimally invasive Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee replacement: results of 1000 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93(2):198-204. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.93B2.25767.
  17. Walker T., Streit J., Gotterbarm T., Bruckner T., Merle C., Streit M.R. Sports, Physical Activity and Patient-Reported Outcomes After Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty in Young Patients. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(11):1911-1916. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.05.031.
  18. Greco N.J., Lombardi A.V. Jr, Price A.J., Berend M.E., Berend K.R. Medial Mobile-Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty in Young Patients Aged Less Than or Equal to 50 Years. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(8):2435-2439. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.03.069.
  19. Witjes S., Gouttebarge V., Kuijer P.P., van Geenen R.C., Poolman R.W., Kerkhoffs G.M. 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. doi: 10.1007/s40279-015-0421-9.
  20. Корнилов Н.Н., Куляба Т.А., Федоров Р.Э. Причины повторных хирургических вмешательств после одномыщелкового эндопротезирования коленного сустава. Травматология и ортопедия России. 2013;(1):12-18. Kornilov N.N., Kulyaba T.A., Fedorov R.E. [Causes of revision surgery after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty]. Travmatologiya i Ortopediya Rossii [Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia]. 2013;(1):12-18. (In Russian). doi: 10.21823/2311-2905-2013--1-12-18.
  21. Beard D.J., Pandit H., Ostlere S., Jenkins C., Dodd C.A., Murray D.W. Pre-operative clinical and radiological assessment of the patellofemoral joint in unicompartmental knee replacement and its influence on outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89(12):1602-1607. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.89B12.19260.
  22. Berend K.R., Lombardi A.V. Jr., Morris M.J., Hurst J.M., Kavolus J.J. Does preoperative patellofemoral joint state affect medial unicompartmental arthroplasty survival? Orthopedics. 2011;34(9):e494-496. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20110714-39.
  23. Kang S.N., Smith T.O., Sprenger De Rover W.B., Walton N.P. Pre-operative patellofemoral degenerative changes do not affect the outcome after medial Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement: a report from an independent centre. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93(4):476-8. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.93B4.25562.
  24. Beard D.J., Pandit H., Gill H.S., Hollinghurst D., Dodd C.A., Murray D.W. The influence of the presence and severity of pre-existing patellofemoral degenerative changes on the outcome of the Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89(12):1597-1601. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.89B12.19259.
  25. Hernigou P., Pascale W., Pascale V., Homma Y., Poignard A. Does primary or secondary chondrocalcinosis influence long-term survivorship of unicompartmental arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(7):1973-1979. doi: 10.1007/s11999-011-2211-5.
  26. Kumar V., Pandit H.G., Liddle A.D., Borror W., Jenkins C., Mellon S.J. et al. Comparison of outcomes after UKA in patients with and without chondrocalcinosis: a matched cohort study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25(1):319-324. doi: 10.1007/s00167-015-3578-8.
  27. Suero E.M., Citak M., Cross M.B., Bosscher M.R., Ranawat A.S., Pearle A.D. Effects of tibial slope changes in the stability of fixed bearing medial unicompartmental arthroplasty in anterior cruciate ligament deficient knees. Knee. 2012;19(4):365-369. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2011.07.004.
  28. Boissonneault A., Pandit H., Pegg E., Jenkins C., Gill H.S., Dodd C.A. et al. No difference in survivorship after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with or without an intact anterior cruciate ligament. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21(11):2480-2486. doi: 10.1007/s00167-012-2101-8.
  29. Kendrick B.J., Rout R., Bottomley N.J., Pandit H., Gill H.S., Price A.J. et al. The implications of damage to the lateral femoral condyle on medial unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92(3):374-379. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.92B3.23561.
  30. Goodfellow J.W., O’Connor J.J., Murray D.W. A critique of revision rate as an outcome measure: re-interpretation of knee joint registry data. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92(12):1628-1631. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.92B12.25193.
  31. Beard D.J., Davies L.J., Cook J.A., MacLennan G., Price A., Kent S. et al. Total versus partial knee replacement in patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis: the TOPKAT RCT. Health Technol Assess. 2020;24(20): 1-98. doi: 10.3310/hta24200.
  32. Siman H., Kamath A.F., Carrillo N., Harmsen W.S., Pagnano M.W., Sierra R.J. Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty vs Total Knee Arthroplasty for Medial Compartment Arthritis in Patients Older Than 75 Years: Comparable Reoperation, Revision, and Complication Rates. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(6):1792-1797. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.01.020.
  33. Lum Z.C., Lombardi A.V., Hurst J.M., Morris M.J., Adams J.B., Berend K.R. Early outcomes of twin-peg mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compared with primary total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2016;98-B(10 Supple B):28-33. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B10.BJJ-2016-0414.R1.
  34. Horikawa A., Miyakoshi N., Shimada Y., Kodama H. Comparison of clinical outcomes between total knee arthroplasty and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis of the knee: a retrospective analysis of preoperative and postoperative results. J Orthop Surg Res. 2015;10:168. doi: 10.1186/s13018-015-0309-2.
  35. Lyons M.C., MacDonald S.J., Somerville L.E., Naudie D.D., McCalden R.W. Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty database analysis: is there a winner? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(1):84-90. doi: 10.1007/s11999-011-2144-z.
  36. Zuiderbaan H.A., van der List J.P., Khamaisy S., Nawabi D.H., Thein R., Ishmael C. et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty: Which type of artificial joint do patients forget? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25(3):681-686. doi: 10.1007/s00167-015-3868-1.
  37. Liddle A.D., Judge A., Pandit H., Murray D.W. Adverse outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee replacement in 101,330 matched patients: a study of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet. 2014;384(9952):1437-1445. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60419-0.
  38. Burn E., Liddle A.D., Hamilton T.W., Judge A., Pandit H.G., Murray D.W., Pinedo-Villanueva R. Cost-effectiveness of unicompartmental compared with total knee replacement: a population-based study using data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. BMJ Open. 2018;8(4):e020977. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020977.
  39. Mohammad H.R., Strickland L., Hamilton T.W., Murray D.W. Long-term outcomes of over 8,000 medial Oxford Phase 3 Unicompartmental Knees-a systematic review. Acta Orthop. 2018;89(1):101-107. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2017.1367577.
  40. Parratte S, Ollivier M, Lunebourg A, Abdel MP, Argenson JN. Long-term results of compartmental arthroplasties of the knee: Long term results of partial knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B(10 Suppl A):9-15. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.97B10.36426.
  41. Faour-Martín O., Valverde-García J.A., Martín-Ferrero M.A., Vega-Castrillo A., de la Red Gallego M.A., Suárez de Puga C.C., Amigo-Liñares L. Oxford phase 3 unicondylar knee arthroplasty through a minimally invasive approach: long-term results. Int Orthop. 2013;37(5):833-838. doi: 10.1007/s00264-013-1830-8.
  42. Yoshida K., Tada M., Yoshida H., Takei S., Fukuoka S., Nakamura H. Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in Japan--clinical results in greater than one thousand cases over ten years. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28 (9 Suppl):168-171. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.08.019.
  43. Kim K.T., Lee S., Kim J.H., Hong S.W., Jung W.S., Shin W.S. The Survivorship and Clinical Results of Minimally Invasive Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty at 10-Year Follow-up. Clin Orthop Surg. 2015;7(2):199-206. doi: 10.4055/cios.2015.7.2.199.
  44. Emerson R.H., Alnachoukati O., Barrington J., Ennin K. The results of Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the United States: a mean ten-year survival analysis. Bone Joint J. 2016;98-B(10 Supple B): 34-40. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B10.BJJ-2016-0480.R1.
  45. Liddle A.D., Pandit H., Judge A., Murray D.W. Optimal usage of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study of 41,986 cases from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B(11):1506-1511. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.97B11.35551.
  46. Liddle A.D., Pandit H., Judge A., Murray D.W. Effect of Surgical Caseload on Revision Rate Following Total and Unicompartmental Knee Replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(1):1-8. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.N.00487.
  47. Koskinen E., Eskelinen A., Paavolainen P., Pulkkinen P., Remes V. Comparison of survival and cost-effectiveness between unicondylar arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty in patients with primary osteoarthritis: a follow-up study of 50,493 knee replacements from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop. 2008;79(4):499-507. doi: 10.1080/17453670710015490.
  48. Hartnett N.I., Tregonning R.J.A., Rothwell A., Hobbs T. The early failure of the Oxford Phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: an audit of revisions: the New Zealand experience. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006; 88-B(Suppl II):318.
  49. Epinette J.A., Brunschweiler B., Mertl P., Mole D., Cazenave A.; French Society for Hip and Knee. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty modes of failure: wear is not the main reason for failure: a multicentre study of 418 failed knees. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012;98(6 Suppl):S124-130. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2012.07.002.
  50. Pandit H., Jenkins C., Gill H.S., Barker K., Dodd C.A., Murray D.W. Minimally invasive Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee replacement: results of 1000 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93(2):198-204. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.93B2.25767.
  51. Goodfellow J.W., O’Connor J.J., Murray D.W. A critique of revision rate as an outcome measure: re-interpretation of knee joint registry data. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92(12):1628-31. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.92B12.25193.
  52. Goodfellow J., O’Connor J., Dodd C., Murray D. Unicompartmental arthroplasty with the Oxford knee. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
  53. Niinimäki T.T., Murray D.W., Partanen J., Pajala A., Leppilahti J.I. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasties implanted for osteoarthritis with partial loss of joint space have high re-operation rates. Knee. 2011;18(6):432-435. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2010.08.004.
  54. Pandit H., Gulati A., Jenkins C., Barker K., Price A.J., Dodd C.A., Murray D.W. Unicompartmental knee replacement for patients with partial thickness cartilage loss in the affected compartment. Knee. 2011;18(3):168-171. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2010.05.003.
  55. Hamilton T.W., Pandit H.G., Inabathula A., Ostlere S.J., Jenkins C., Mellon S.J. et al. Unsatisfactory outcomes following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients with partial thickness cartilage loss: a medium-term follow-up. Bone Joint J. 2017;99-B(4):475-482. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.99B4.BJJ-2016-1061.R1.
  56. Murray D.W., Liddle A.D., Dodd C.A., Pandit H. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is the glass half full or half empty? Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B(10 Suppl A): 3-8. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.97B10.36542.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download
2. Fig. 1. The results of the survey of surgeons — linear diagram* — parameters showing significant differences

Download (52KB)
Indexing metadata

Copyright (c) 2021 Fil A.S., Antipov A.P., Kulyaba T.A., Kornilov N.N.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Согласие на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика»

1. Я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных»), осуществляя использование сайта https://journals.rcsi.science/ (далее – «Сайт»), подтверждая свою полную дееспособность даю согласие на обработку персональных данных с использованием средств автоматизации Оператору - федеральному государственному бюджетному учреждению «Российский центр научной информации» (РЦНИ), далее – «Оператор», расположенному по адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А, со следующими условиями.

2. Категории обрабатываемых данных: файлы «cookies» (куки-файлы). Файлы «cookie» – это небольшой текстовый файл, который веб-сервер может хранить в браузере Пользователя. Данные файлы веб-сервер загружает на устройство Пользователя при посещении им Сайта. При каждом следующем посещении Пользователем Сайта «cookie» файлы отправляются на Сайт Оператора. Данные файлы позволяют Сайту распознавать устройство Пользователя. Содержимое такого файла может как относиться, так и не относиться к персональным данным, в зависимости от того, содержит ли такой файл персональные данные или содержит обезличенные технические данные.

3. Цель обработки персональных данных: анализ пользовательской активности с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика».

4. Категории субъектов персональных данных: все Пользователи Сайта, которые дали согласие на обработку файлов «cookie».

5. Способы обработки: сбор, запись, систематизация, накопление, хранение, уточнение (обновление, изменение), извлечение, использование, передача (доступ, предоставление), блокирование, удаление, уничтожение персональных данных.

6. Срок обработки и хранения: до получения от Субъекта персональных данных требования о прекращении обработки/отзыва согласия.

7. Способ отзыва: заявление об отзыве в письменном виде путём его направления на адрес электронной почты Оператора: info@rcsi.science или путем письменного обращения по юридическому адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А

8. Субъект персональных данных вправе запретить своему оборудованию прием этих данных или ограничить прием этих данных. При отказе от получения таких данных или при ограничении приема данных некоторые функции Сайта могут работать некорректно. Субъект персональных данных обязуется сам настроить свое оборудование таким способом, чтобы оно обеспечивало адекватный его желаниям режим работы и уровень защиты данных файлов «cookie», Оператор не предоставляет технологических и правовых консультаций на темы подобного характера.

9. Порядок уничтожения персональных данных при достижении цели их обработки или при наступлении иных законных оснований определяется Оператором в соответствии с законодательством Российской Федерации.

10. Я согласен/согласна квалифицировать в качестве своей простой электронной подписи под настоящим Согласием и под Политикой обработки персональных данных выполнение мною следующего действия на сайте: https://journals.rcsi.science/ нажатие мною на интерфейсе с текстом: «Сайт использует сервис «Яндекс.Метрика» (который использует файлы «cookie») на элемент с текстом «Принять и продолжить».