Cementless medial Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement. Five-year results from an independent series

Did a New Design of the Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Prosthesis Result in Improved Survival? A Study From the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 2012-2021

BACKGROUND

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has generally shown higher revision rates than TKA, and this is particularly true for the femoral component. A twin-peg femoral component (Oxford Partial) has replaced the single-peg version (Oxford Phase III) of the widely used Oxford medial UKA, with the aim of improving femoral component fixation. The introduction of the Oxford Partial Knee also included a fully uncemented option. However, there has been relatively little evidence regarding the effect of these changes on implant survival and revision diagnoses from groups not associated with the implant design.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

Using data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, we asked: (1) Has the 5-year implant survival (free from revision for any cause) improved with the medial Oxford unicompartmental knee after the introduction of new designs? (2) Did the causes of revision change between the old and new designs? (3) Is there a difference in risk for specific revision causes between the uncemented and cemented versions of the new design?

METHODS

We performed a registry-based observational study using data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, a nationwide, mandatory and governmental registry with a high reporting rate. Between 2012 and 2021, 7549 Oxford UKAs were performed, and 105 were excluded due to combinations of the three designs, lateral compartment replacement, or hybrid fixation, leaving 908 cemented Oxford Phase III single-peg (used from 2012 to 2017), 4715 cemented Oxford Partial twin-peg (used from 2012 to 2021), and 1821 uncemented Oxford Partial twin-peg (used from 2014 to 2021), UKAs available for the analysis. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression multivariate analysis were used to find the 5-year implant survival and the risk of revision (hazard ratio), when adjusting for age, gender, diagnosis, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, and time period. The risk of revision for any cause and the risk of revision for specific causes were compared, first for the older with the two new designs, and second for the cemented with the uncemented version of the new design. Revision was defined as any operation exchanging or removing implant parts.

RESULTS

The 5-year Kaplan-Meier overall implant survival (free from revision for any cause) for the medial Oxford Partial unicompartmental knee did not improve over the study period. The 5-year Kaplan-Meier survival was different (p = 0.03) between the groups: it was 92% (95% confidence interval [CI] 90% to 94%) for the cemented Oxford III, 94% (95% CI 93% to 95%) for the cemented Oxford Partial, and 94% (95% CI 92% to 95%) for the uncemented Oxford Partial. However, the overall risk of revision during the first 5 years was not different between the groups (Cox regression HR 0.8 [95% CI 0.6 to 1.0]; p = 0.09 and 1.0 [95% CI 0.7 to 1.4]; p = 0.89 for the cemented Oxford Partial and the uncemented Oxford Partial, respectively, compared with cemented Oxford III [HR 1]). The uncemented Oxford Partial had a higher risk of revision for infection (HR 3.6 [95% CI 1.2 to 10.5]; p = 0.02) compared with the cemented Oxford III. The uncemented Oxford Partial had a lower risk of revision for pain (HR 0.5 [95% CI 0.2 to 1.0]; p = 0.045) and instability (HR 0.3 [95% CI 0.1 to 0.9]; p = 0.03) compared with the cemented Oxford III. The cemented Oxford Partial had a lower risk of revision for aseptic femoral loosening (HR 0.3 [95% CI 0.1 to 1.0]; p = 0.04) compared with the cemented Oxford III. When comparing the uncemented and cemented versions of the new design, the uncemented Oxford Partial had a higher risk of revision for periprosthetic fracture (HR 15 [95% CI 4 to 54]; p = 0.001) and infection within the first year (HR 3.0 [95% CI 1.5 to 5.7]; p = 0.001) than the cemented Oxford Partial.

CONCLUSION

Considering that we found no difference in overall risk of revision during the first 5 years but we found a higher risk of revision for infection, periprosthetic fracture, and higher per implant cost, we currently would recommend against the use of uncemented Oxford Partial over the cemented Oxford Partial or the cemented Oxford III.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Short- to mid-term results of minimally invasive lateral unicompartmental knee replacement: 133 cases in a non-designer series

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the current study was to demonstrate short- to mid-term survivorship as well as clinical outcome of lateral unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) with a fixed-bearing (FB) design from a non-designer center using the Oxford Fixed Lateral prosthesis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-center retrospective cohort study reports the results of 133 consecutive lateral FB-UKR. Survivorship analysis was performed with different endpoints and clinical outcome was measured using the Oxford-Knee-Score (OKS), American-Knee-Society-Score (AKSS-O), range-of-motion (ROM) and visual-analog-scale for pain (VAS).

RESULTS

There were two revision surgeries with conversion to total knee replacements (TKR) due to persistent pain resulting in a survival rate of 98.5% (95% CI 93.5-99.6) with a mean follow-up (FU) of 3.3 ± 1.8 years (range 1-8.5). All outcome scores, VAS and ROM showed a significant improvement at final FU (p < 0.001). The OKS improved from 26 ± 7.8 (range 11-45) preoperatively to 39 ± 8.3 (range 13-48), the AKSS-O from 49.2 ± 14.6 (range 18-90) to 81.8 ± 15.1 (range 40-100), the AKSS-F from 53 ± 23.7 (range 0-100) to 80.4 ± 21.4 (range 5-100) and the ROM from 118 ± 17 (range 90-160) to 134 ± 9.5 (range 100-155).

CONCLUSIONS

The short- to mid-term results following lateral FB-UKR demonstrate a high survivorship and good clinical outcome from an independent series. We, therefore, suggest that FB-UKR is a safe treatment option for isolated lateral OA if sufficient surgical experience is provided.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective cohort study, level IV.

Mobile bearing versus fixed bearing medial unicompartmental knee replacement: an independent two center matched-pairs analysis

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the present study was to compare clinical outcome between patients following fixed-bearing (FB) or mobile-bearing (MB) unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) for antero-medial knee osteoarthrosis (OA) at two independent orthopedic centers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Matched-pairs were built between 35 patients receiving FB-UKR and 52 patients following MB-UKR regarding age at time of surgery, body mass index (BMI) and range of motion (ROM) preoperatively. Clinical and functional outcome was measured postoperatively by the American Knee Society Score (AKSS-O/AKSS-F), ROM, Tegner Activity Scale (TAS) as well as the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36).

RESULTS

The average treatment effect of the treated (ATT) after propensity score matching showed a significantly superior ROM in patients following MB-UKR (FB: 118°, MB: 124°). All remaining parameters had no statistically significant differences between both groups involving TAS, AKSS and SF-36.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study suggests that MB-UKR can provide a greater ROM compared to FB-UKR on comparable patients. The authors believe that both designs are suitable for adequate improvement of clinical outcome and ROM for patients suffering from antero-medial osteoarthrosis of the knee joint.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective cohort study, Level IV.

Medium term results of the cementless Oxford mobile bearing medial unicompartmental knee replacement

BACKGROUND

Medial Unicompartmental Knee Replacement (UKR) has well-documented benefits over Total Knee Replacement in the treatment of anteromedial osteoarthritis of the knee. There has been an increasing move from cemented to cementless UKR over the last decade. This non-design centre study assesses the initial experience using the cementless Oxford medial partial knee replacement and provides medium term revision data, as well as Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs).

METHODS

A cohort of 200 consecutive patients undergoing medial UKR using the cementless Oxford were identified from our knee groups prospectively collected database. Cases were performed in a single centre under the care of one of four surgeons. All patients were beyond the 5-year minimum timepoint following UKR surgery in order to produce medium term results, at a mean of 7.9 years. Eligible patients completed a postal questionnaire to collect PROMs: Oxford Knee Score, WOMAC and modified American Knee Society Score questionnaires in January 2020 and had their clinical records reviewed.

RESULTS

The survivorship in our cohort was 94.5% at a mean follow up of 7.9 years following surgery. There were 11 re-operations in total with a three percent risk of re-operation within the first 18 months following surgery. There was a sustained improvement in Oxford Knee Score with a near 20 points improvement on pre-operative scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results provide further evidence that partial knee replacements using the cementless Oxford produce good clinical outcomes. Revision rates are similar to those published in the National Joint Registry.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Cementless knee arthroplasty: a review of recent performance

Cementless knee arthroplasty has seen a recent resurgence in popularity due to conceptual advantages, including improved osseointegration providing biological fixation, increased surgical efficiency, and reduced systemic complications associated with cement impaction and wear from cement debris. Increasingly younger and higher demand patients are requiring knee arthroplasty, and as such, there is optimism cementless fixation may improve implant survivorship and functional outcomes.

Compared to cemented implants, the National Joint Registry (NJR) currently reports higher revision rates in cementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but lower in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). However, recent studies are beginning to show excellent outcomes with cementless implants, particularly with UKA which has shown superior performance to cemented varieties. Cementless TKA has yet to show long-term benefit, and currently performs equivalently to cemented in short- to medium-term cohort studies. However, with novel concepts including 3D-printed coatings, robotic-assisted surgery, radiostereometric analysis, and kinematic or functional knee alignment principles, it is hoped they may help improve the outcomes of cementless TKA in the long-term. In addition, though cementless implant costs remain higher due to novel implant coatings, it is speculated cost-effectiveness can be achieved through greater surgical efficiency and potential reduction in revision costs. There is paucity of level one data on long-term outcomes between fixation methods and the cost-effectiveness of modern cementless knee arthroplasty.

This review explores recent literature on cementless knee arthroplasty, with regards to clinical outcomes, implant survivorship, complications, and cost-effectiveness; providing a concise update to assist clinicians on implant choice.

Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(1):48–57.