Conversion of failed modern unicompartmental arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty

The clinical outcome of total knee arthroplasty is compromised by a previously implanted medial unicondylar knee arthroplasty

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the clinical outcome of patients that underwent conversion of a medial unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) to a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and to compare that outcome to patients that underwent primary TKA. It was hypothesized that those groups would significantly differ in terms of knee score outcome and implant survival.

METHODS

A retrospective-comparative study was conducted utilizing data from the Federal state's arthroplasty registry. Included were patients from our department that undergone a conversion of a medial UKA to a TKA (UKA-TKA group). The Western Ontario and MacMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) from preoperative and 1-year postoperative was used. Moreover, the implant survival was analyzed.

RESULTS

In the UKA-TKA group, there were 51 cases (age 67 ± 10, 74% women), and in the TKA group, there were 2247 cases (age 69 ± 9, 66% women). The one-year postoperative WOMAC total score was 33 in the UKA-TKA group und 21 in the TKA group (p < 0.001). Similarly, the WOMAC pain, WOMAC stiffness, and WOMAC function scores were significantly worse in the UKA-TKA. After 5 years, the survival rates were 82% and 95% (p = 0.001). The 10-years prosthesis survival was 74% and 91% in the UKA-TKA and TKA groups, respectively (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our findings it is concluded that patients who received a TKA after UKA have inferior results than those that directly receive a TKA. This is true for both patient-reported knee outcome and prosthesis survival. Converting UKA to TKA should not be seen as an easy operation, but should rather be done by surgeons with considerable experience in both primary and revision knee arthroplasty.

Does a Uni "Feel Better" than a Total Knee? Not Necessarily, When Using Modern Implant Designs

Background: When comparing functional outcomes of patients with unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) versus total knee arthroplasty (TKA), studies often report the UKA as the preferred procedure; however, recent improvements in the design of modern TKA implants have aimed at narrowing this gap. Purpose: We sought to compare the "feel" of modern TKA implants to that of UKA, using the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), a validated patient-reported outcome measure. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent TKA and UKA at 2 institutions between 2014 and 2017. All UKA procedures were robotic arm-assisted with a single implant, "traditional TKAs" were performed using traditional posterior-stabilized implants, and "modern TKAs" were performed using posterior-stabilized implants with a modern design. Differences in FJS were assessed using 1-way analysis of variance and independent 2-sample t tests. Results: A total of 600 patients were included in our study, with 200 patients in each surgical subcategory. Mean age was 62.8 ± 10.2 years and mean body mass index was 29.9 ± 4.9. Modern TKA and UKA had similar FJS at 1 year. While modern TKA had a significantly higher FJS than traditional TKA, UKA did not have a significantly higher FJS than traditional TKA. Conclusion: Our retrospective analysis found no significant differences in the FJS of patients who underwent UKA and TKA with a modern design; however, both had superior scores than traditional TKA designs. This finding suggests that modern TKA designs may have the potential to achieve the natural feeling that is typically associated with joint-conserving surgeries such as UKA, although longer follow-up is necessary.

Periprosthetic fractures after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a narrative review

INTRODUCTION

On rare occasions, fractures of the tibial plateau may occur after uni-compartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and account for 2% of total UKA failures. The purpose of this narrative review is to identify and discuss potential risk factors that might lead to prevention of this invalidating complication.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic database of Pubmed, Scopus, Cochrane and Google Scholar were searched. A total of 457 articles related to the topic were found. Of those, 86 references were included in this narrative review.

RESULTS

UKA implantation acts as a stress riser in the medial compartment. To avoid fractures, surgeons need to balance load and bone stock. Post-operative lower limb alignment, implant positioning, level of resection and sizing of the tibial tray have a strong influence on load distribution of the tibial bone. Pain on weight-bearing signals bone-load imbalance and acts as an indicator of bone remodeling and should be a trigger for unloading. The first three months after surgery are critical because of transient post-operative osteoporosis and local biomechanical changes. Acquired osteoporosis is a growing concern in the arthroplasty population. Split fractures require internal fixation, while subsidence fractures differ in their management depending of the amount of bone impaction. Loose implants require revision knee arthroplasty.

CONCLUSION

Peri-prosthetic fracture is a rare, but troublesome event, which can lead to implant failure and revision surgery. Better knowledge of the multifactorial risk factors in association with a thorough surgical technique is key for prevention.

Staged BiCompartmental Knee Arthroplasty has Greater Functional Improvement, but Equivalent Midterm Survivorship, as Revision TKA for Progressive Osteoarthritis After Partial Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Progressive arthritis in the unresurfaced compartments of the knee is one failure mode after partial knee arthroplasty (PKA). While progressive arthritis after PKA is typically treated with revision to TKA (rTKA), staged bicompartmental knee arthroplasty (sBiKA) -the addition of another PKA - is an alternative. This study compared outcomes of sBiKA and rTKA for progressive arthritis after PKA.

METHODS

A retrospective comparative study of non-consecutive cases at four institutions were performed in patients with an intact PKA, without loosening or wear, who underwent sBiKA (n = 27) or rTKA (n = 30), for progressive osteoarthritis. Outcomes studied were new Knee Society Function and Objective Scores (KSSF, KSSO), KOOS, Jr., ROM, operative times, length of stay, complication rates and the need for reoperations.

RESULTS

Mean time to conversion was 7.4 ± 6 years for sBiKA and 9.7 ± 8 for rTKA, P = .178. Patient demographics and pre-operative outcomes were similar among cohorts. At an average of 5.7 ± 3 (sBiKA) and 3.2 ± 2 years (rTKA), KOOS, Jr. significantly improved, P < .001, by an equivalent amount. Post-operative KSSO and KSSF were significantly higher in the sBiKA cohort, respectively, (90.4 ± 10 vs 72.1 ± 20, P < .001) and (80.3 ± 18 vs 67.1 ± 19, P = .011). sBiKA patients had significantly greater improvement in KSSO (30.7 ± 33 vs 5.2 ± 18, P = .003). One sBiKA patient underwent reoperation for continued pain.

CONCLUSION

SBiKA has equivalent survivorship, but greater improvement in functional outcomes as rTKA at short to midterm follow-up. Given the shorter operative times and length of stay, sBiKA is a safe and cost-effective alternative to rTKA for progressive osteoarthritis following PKA. Nevertheless, further follow-up is necessary to determine whether sBiKA is a durable option.

Total versus partial knee replacement in patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis: the TOPKAT RCT

BACKGROUND

Late-stage medial compartment knee osteoarthritis can be treated using total knee replacement or partial (unicompartmental) knee replacement. There is high variation in treatment choice and insufficient evidence to guide selection.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of partial knee replacement compared with total knee replacement in patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis. The findings are intended to guide surgical decision-making for patients, surgeons and health-care providers.

DESIGN

This was a randomised, multicentre, pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial that included an expertise component. The target sample size was 500 patients. A web-based randomisation system was used to allocate treatments.

SETTING

Twenty-seven NHS hospitals (68 surgeons).

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis.

INTERVENTIONS

The trial compared the overall management strategy of partial knee replacement treatment with total knee replacement treatment. No specified brand or subtype of implant was investigated.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The Oxford Knee Score at 5 years was the primary end point. Secondary outcomes included activity scores, global health measures, transition items, patient satisfaction (Lund Score) and complications (including reoperation, revision and composite 'failure' - defined by minimal Oxford Knee Score improvement and/or reoperation). Cost-effectiveness was also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 528 patients were randomised (partial knee replacement, n = 264; total knee replacement, n = 264). The follow-up primary outcome response rate at 5 years was 88% and both operations had good outcomes. There was no significant difference between groups in mean Oxford Knee Score at 5 years (difference 1.04, 95% confidence interval -0.42 to 2.50). An area under the curve analysis of the Oxford Knee Score at 5 years showed benefit in favour of partial knee replacement over total knee replacement, but the difference was within the minimal clinically important difference [mean 36.6 (standard deviation 8.3) (n = 233), mean 35.1 (standard deviation 9.1) (n = 231), respectively]. Secondary outcome measures showed consistent patterns of benefit in the direction of partial knee replacement compared with total knee replacement although most differences were small and non-significant. Patient-reported improvement (transition) and reflection (would you have the operation again?) showed statistically significant superiority for partial knee replacement only, but both of these variables could be influenced by the lack of blinding. The frequency of reoperation (including revision) by treatment received was similar for both groups: 22 out of 245 for partial knee replacement and 28 out of 269 for total knee replacement patients. Revision rates at 5 years were 10 out of 245 for partial knee replacement and 8 out of 269 for total knee replacement. There were 28 'failures' of partial knee replacement and 38 'failures' of total knee replacement (as defined by composite outcome). Beyond 1 year, partial knee replacement was cost-effective compared with total knee replacement, being associated with greater health benefits (measured using quality-adjusted life-years) and lower health-care costs, reflecting lower costs of the index surgery and subsequent health-care use.

LIMITATIONS

It was not possible to blind patients in this study and there was some non-compliance with the allocated treatment interventions. Surgeons providing partial knee replacement were relatively experienced with the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Both total knee replacement and partial knee replacement are effective, offer similar clinical outcomes and have similar reoperation and complication rates. Some patient-reported measures of treatment approval were significantly higher for partial knee replacement than for total knee replacement. Partial knee replacement was more cost-effective (more effective and cost saving) than total knee replacement at 5 years.

FUTURE WORK

Further (10-year) follow-up is in progress to assess the longer-term stability of these findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN03013488 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01352247.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 20. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Management of failed UKA to TKA: conventional versus robotic-assisted conversion technique

Background

Failure of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a distressing and technically challenging complication. Conventional conversion techniques (CCT) with rods and jigs have produced varying results. A robotic-assisted conversion technique (RCT) is an unexplored, though possibly advantageous, alternative. We compare our reconstructive outcomes between conventional and robotic methods in the management of failed UKA.

Methods

Thirty-four patients with a failed UKA were retrospectively reviewed. Patients underwent conversion total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with either a CCT or RCT. Seventeen patients were included in each group. All procedures were done by a single surgeon at a single institution, with a mean time to follow-up of 3.6 years (range, 1 to 12). The primary outcome measures were the need for augments and polyethylene thickness. Secondary outcome measures were complications, need for revision, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay, and operative time.

Results

The mean polyethylene thickness was 12 mm (range, 9 to 15) in the CCT group and 10 mm (range, 9 to 14) in the RCT groups, with no statistical difference between the two groups (P = 0.07). A statistically significant difference, however, was present in the use of augments. In the CCT group, five out of 17 knees required augments, whereas none of the 17 knees in the RCT group required augments (P = 0.04). Procedurally, robotic-assisted surgery progressed uneventfully, even with metal artifact noted on the preoperative computerized tomography (CT) scans. Computer mapping of the residual bone surface after implant removal was a helpful guide in minimizing resection depth. No further revisions or reoperations were performed in either group.

Conclusions

Robotic-assisted conversion TKA is technically feasible and potentially advantageous. In the absence of normal anatomic landmarks to guide conventional methods, the preoperative CT scans were unexpectedly helpful in establishing mechanical alignment and resection depth. In this limited series, RCT does not seem to be inferior to CCT. Further investigation of outcomes is warranted.

Clinical and Radiological Results of Oxford Phase-3 Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

Purpose

The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the effectiveness of medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) by showing the results of the radiological and clinical outcomes of the patients.

Materials and methods

Seventy-two knees of 54 patients who underwent UKA between September 2005 and March 2011 for medial knee arthritis with a minimum follow-up of six months were evaluated. Range of motion (ROM), Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) knee score, Knee Society Score (KSS), and Oxford Knee Score (OKS) were investigated both preoperatively and postoperatively. On the other hand, Oxford radiographic evaluation criteria were used to evaluate prostheses radiologically at the final follow-up.

Results

The average age was 53.4 years (47 to 79 years). The average follow-up time was 39.8 months (8 to 72 months). There was a significant difference between preoperative and postoperative ROM, HSS, and OKS (p<0.05). Radiologically, there was no sign of arthritis on the unoperated side of the knee or failure of prosthesis detected. Before the operation, the average clinical KSS was 63.2 and improved to 91.4 after the operation. In addition, the average functional KSS was 54.9 before the operation and improved to 86.5 after the operation. The average knee flexion degree was 109.1 before the operation and there was an improvement to 123.6 degrees after the operation. Before the operation, the average HSS score was 67.5 (range, 52 to 75) and improved to 89.9 (range, 85 to 100) at the final control examination.

Conclusion

This study supports the use of Oxford Phase 3 UKA, which has excellent clinical and radiological results in patients with medial knee arthritis.

The clinical and cost-effectiveness of total versus partial knee replacement in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis (TOPKAT): 5-year outcomes of a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Late-stage isolated medial knee osteoarthritis can be treated with total knee replacement (TKR) or partial knee replacement (PKR). There is high variation in treatment choice and little robust evidence to guide selection. The Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial (TOPKAT) therefore aims to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of TKR versus PKR in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee, and this represents an analysis of the main endpoints at 5 years.

METHODS

Our multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial was done at 27 UK sites. We used a combined expertise-based and equipoise-based approach, in which patients with isolated osteoarthritis of the medial compartment of the knee and who satisfied general requirements for a medial PKR were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive PKR or TKR by surgeons who were either expert in and willing to perform both surgeries or by a surgeon with particular expertise in the allocated procedure. The primary endpoint was the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) 5 years after randomisation in all patients assigned to groups. Health-care costs (in UK 2017 prices) and cost-effectiveness were also assessed. This trial is registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN03013488) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01352247).

FINDINGS

Between Jan 18, 2010, and Sept 30, 2013, we assessed 962 patients for their eligibility, of whom 431 (45%) patients were excluded (121 [13%] patients did not meet the inclusion criteria and 310 [32%] patients declined to participate) and 528 (55%) patients were randomly assigned to groups. 94% of participants responded to the follow-up survey 5 years after their operation. At the 5-year follow-up, we found no difference in OKS between groups (mean difference 1·04, 95% CI -0·42 to 2·50; p=0·159). In our within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis, we found that PKR was more effective (0·240 additional quality-adjusted life-years, 95% CI 0·046 to 0·434) and less expensive (-£910, 95% CI -1503 to -317) than TKR during the 5 years of follow-up. This finding was a result of slightly better outcomes, lower costs of surgery, and lower follow-up health-care costs with PKR than TKR.

INTERPRETATION

Both TKR and PKR are effective, offer similar clinical outcomes, and result in a similar incidence of re-operations and complications. Based on our clinical findings, and results regarding the lower costs and better cost-effectiveness with PKR during the 5-year study period, we suggest that PKR should be considered the first choice for patients with late-stage isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction following revision of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty are as good as a primary total knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

With unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) being increasingly performed for medial compartment osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee, revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for failed UKA is expected to increase. Our primary aim is to evaluate patients in our tertiary institution who underwent revision of failed UKA to TKA to compare their pre-operative clinical scores (patient-reported outcome measures, PROMs) to those of primary TKA.

METHODS

Retrospective review of our institutional arthroplasty registry between 2001 and 2014 was performed. We identified 70 patients who underwent revision of UKA to TKA. The revision UKA to TKA patients was matched with 140 patients who underwent primary TKA for OA in terms of preoperative demographics, gender, age at time of surgery, body mass index (BMI), primary surgeon, and PROMs. Intra-operative data and postoperative complications or re-revision surgeries performed were reviewed.

RESULTS

In the revision UKA to TKA group, more stems, augments or constrained implants were used compared to primary TKA. A greater proportion of patients with metal-backed UKA revision to TKA required stems, augments or constrained implants as compared to all-polyethylene UKA revision to TKA, but not a significant proportion (P = 0.250). At two years postoperatively, there were no significant differences observed between the groups in terms of patient satisfaction and PROMs.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed similar outcomes following revision of failed UKA to TKA and primary TKA. There were significant improvements in PROMs for revision UKA to TKA, which is comparable to that of primary TKA.

Analysis of Retrieved Unicompartmental Knee Implants and Tissue: Third-Body Wear as a Potential Contributor to Progression of Arthritis to Adjacent Compartments

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) for the treatment of single-compartment osteoarthritis has been associated with polyethylene wear and progression of osteoarthritis into adjacent compartments, leading to revision. In this study, damage and clinical failure modes of retrieved UKA implants were investigated and protein expression profiles between articular cartilage adjacent to UKA and primary osteoarthritic cartilage were compared. Fifty retrieved UKA implants were analyzed for various damage. Records review and radiographic analysis were performed to collect clinical data and implant characteristics. Cartilage harvested from revision UKA and primary total knee arthroplasty surgeries was characterized with a proteome profiling array detecting levels of 36 different cytokines, chemokines, and acute phase inflammatory proteins. Progression of osteoarthritis (n=18, 36%) and component loosening (n=17, 34%) were the most common reasons for revision. Liners exhibited the highest frequency of damage modes. Progression of arthritis positively correlated with radiographic presence of extruded bone cement and burnishing of liner components. A protein-level profile between revision UKA and primary total knee arthroplasty cartilage showed 12 differentially expressed cytokines. Failure of UKA may be secondary to the effects of wear debris particulate migration into the adjacent compartment, suggesting an additional pathway of cartilage damage manifesting as traditional clinical symptoms. [Orthopedics. 2019; 42(3):149-157.].

Can UKA after KineSpring system failure be a viable option? A case report

Background and aim of the Work: The KineSpring System is an alternative treatment offered in selected symptomatic patients suffering from mild to moderate medial knee osteoarthritis (OA). This device reduces medial compartment loads in the OA knee without compromising the integrity of the lateral or patellofemoral knee compartments, maintaining the normal knee anatomy. Currently, papers about KineSpring System installation show promising results. The current authors describe a case of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) employed to treat medial knee OA after Kinespring system failure. Methods: A 64-year old male patient presented to our hospital after failure of a Kinespring system implantation into his left knee at an external hospital, where the outcomes obtained were not satisfactory. The surgical options discussed with the patient were the TKA or medial UKA. A medial UKA was preferred by the patient. Results: One year from UKA, the patient complained of frequent joint effusions and weight bearing pain despite a good ROM without radiographic signs of implant loosening. Therefore, after two years we replaced UKA with total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Conclusions: Further experience is needed to provide reliable clinical data about the results of the UKA after KineSpring System discharge. (www.actabiomedica.it)

Long-term deterioration after one-stage unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

PURPOSE

Treatment for unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis (OA) is controversial in young patients with concomitant anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) deficiency. The aim of the current study is to report long-term results after the combination of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and ACL reconstruction.

METHODS

Retrospective study of one-stage medial UKA and ACL reconstruction was performed on eight patients at a mean age of 52 years (42-60). Clinical and radiological results were assessed and analyzed after a mean follow-up of 14.6 years.

RESULTS

Patients were satisfied and mean personal satisfaction rate was 8.8 (4-10). At the last follow-up, mean WOMAC score was 26 (1-52) and mean global KSS was 154 (102-200). One revision surgery to total knee arthroplasty was performed 9 years after the combined procedure due to aseptic loosening. One more case of clinical deterioration was observed 13 years after index surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined UKA and ACL reconstruction can be a therapeutic option for young and active patients with concomitant knee instability and unicompartmental OA. The procedure is highly demanding and reliable only in hands of experienced surgeons. Overall, satisfactory outcome can be achieved at a minimum follow-up of 10 years. However, clinical deterioration can be observed in the long term.

Comparison of the clinical outcomes of revision of failed UKAs to TKAs with primary TKAs: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is one of the effective surgical methods for the treatment of unicompartmental knee arthritis. When UKA fails, a revised surgery to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is often necessary. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of revision of failed UKAs to TKAs with primary TKAs. The hypothesis was that the TKAs revised from UKAs had inferior clinical outcomes compared with primary TKAs.This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) proposed by the Cochrane Collaboration was used for evaluating the methodological quality of the studies. PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify studies that compared the revision of UKA to TKA with primary TKA. Primary outcomes included Range of motion (ROM); Knee society score (KSS); (re-)revision rate and complications. Secondary outcomes were blood loss and length of hospital stay.A total of 8 eligible retrospective comparative studies were identified from a keyword search. Results revealed that the primary TKAs group has a better ROM (MD = -7.29, 95% CI:-14.03-0.56, P < .05), higher Knee Society Knee scores (MD = -0.54, 95% CI:-1.12-0.04, P < .05), higher Knee Society function score (MD = -0.65,95% CI:-1.25-0.06, P < .05), lower (re-)revision rate (MD = 4.15, 95% CI:2.37-7.25, P < .05) than rUKAs. There was no significant difference in postoperative complications, blood loss and length of stay between the 2 groups.Our meta-analysis revealed that compared with primary TKAs, TKAs revised from UKAs had inferior clinical outcomes.

Revision total knee arthroplasty for failed high tibial osteotomy and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty have similar patient-reported outcome measures in a two-year follow-up study

Aims

Little is known about the relative outcomes of revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and high tibial osteotomy (HTO) to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of revision surgery for the two procedures in terms of complications, re-revision and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at a minimum of two years follow-up.

Patients and Methods

This study was a retrospective review of data from an institutional arthroplasty registry for cases performed between 2001 and 2014. A total of 292 patients were identified, of which 217 had a revision of HTO to TKA, and 75 had revision of UKA to TKA. While mean follow-up was longer for the HTO group compared with the UKA group, patient demographics (age, body mass index and Charlson co-morbidity index) and PROMs (Short Form-36, Oxford Knee Score, Knee Society Score, both objective and functional) were similar in the two groups prior to revision surgery. Outcomes included the rate of complications and re-operation, PROMS and patient-reported satisfaction at six months and two years post-operatively. We also compared the duration of surgery and the need for revision implants in the two groups.

Results

At two-year follow-up, both groups of patients had made significant improvement in terms of PROMs compared with pre-operative scores. PROMs and satisfaction rates were similar in the two groups. Complications requiring re-operation were significantly more frequent in the HTO group whilst more revision implants were used in the UKA group, resulting in a longer operative duration.

Conclusion

Revision of HTO and UKA achieve similar post-operative PROMs and satisfaction. Revision of UKA more frequently requires revision components with increased operation duration but fewer complications requiring re-operation compared with revision of HTO. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1329–34.

Diseases of Subchondral Bone 2

Osteonecrosis of the knee can be divided into the following 3 categories: primary or Spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee (SONK), secondary osteonecrosis (ON), and postarthroscopic osteonecrosis. Patient characteristics as well as underlying risk factors can help categorize the type of osteonecrosis and guide treatment. SONK was &filig;rst described by Ahlback et al in 1968. It is described as a disease of subchondral bone that leads to focal ischemia and bone marrow edema, necrosis, and possible subsequent structural collapse. SONK typically presents in the older women with frequent involvement of the medial femoral condyle. Secondary osteonecrosis is typically present in patients below 55 years of age. Unlike SONK, secondary ON presents multiple foci of bone marrow involvement with extension into the metaphysis and diaphysis. Postarthroscopic ON has been described after arthroscopic meniscectomy, shaver-assisted chondroplasty, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, and laser or radiofrequency-assisted debridement.

Lateral tibial plateau autograft in revision surgery for failed medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

PURPOSE

Revision surgery for failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) with bone loss is challenging. Several options are available including cement augmentation, metal augmentation, and bone grafting. The aim of the present study was to describe a surgical technique for lateral tibial plateau autografting and report mid-term outcomes.

METHODS

Eleven consecutive patients (median age 69.5 years) affected by posteromedial tibial plateau collapse after medial UKA were enrolled in the present study. The delay between UKA and revision surgery was 21 months (range 15-36 months). All patients were revised with a cemented posterior-stabilized implant, with a tibial stem. Medial tibial plateau bone loss was treated with an autologous lateral tibial plateau bone graft secured with two absorbable screws. All patients were evaluated with the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), visual analogue scale for pain (VAS), and complete radiographic evaluation.

RESULTS

At a median follow-up of 60 months (range 36-84 months), the OKS improved from 21.5 (range 16-26) to 34.5 (range 30-40) (p < 0.01) and the median VAS score improved from 8.0 (range 5-9) to 5.5 (range 3-7) (p < 0.01). No intraoperative complications were recorded. Partial reabsorption of the graft was observed in two cases at final follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Lateral tibial plateau bone autograft is an alternative to metal wedge or cement augments in the treatment of medial plateau collapse after UKA. Primary fixation of the tibial plateau autograft can be achieved with absorbable screws and a tibial-stemmed implant. Further comparative studies with a larger series may be helpful to draw definitive conclusions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Case series, Level IV.

Mid-term results of Oxford phase-3 medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for medial arthritis in Chinese patients

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the mid-term results of an Oxford phase-3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) for medial arthritis in Chinese patients.

METHODS

The study included 64 patients who underwent a minimally invasive Oxford phase-3 UKA for medial knee arthritis. The patients were clinically evaluated preoperatively and at the final follow-up according to the clinical and functional components of the Knee Society Score (KSS), the Hospital for Special Surgery knee score and range of motion. A Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed with revision surgery as the end point.

RESULTS

The mean preoperative clinical KSSs increased from 63.2 to 91.4 post-operatively, and the mean functional KSSs increased from 54.9 to 86.5 post-operatively. In addition, the mean Hospital for Special Surgery scores increased from 59.5 to 86.4. The mean active knee flexion increased from 109.1° preoperatively to 123.6° post-operatively. A total of six patients (six knees) required revision surgery at the time of the maximum 10-year follow-up. Four conversions to total knee arthroplasty were performed because of arthritis progression in the lateral compartment. One revision to total knee arthroplasty was performed for aseptic loosening, and one liner exchange was performed for wear. The cumulative survival rates at the 6- and 8-year follow-ups were 97% and 93%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Oxford phase-3 UKA was largely applicable for medial arthritis in Chinese patients. However, the Oxford phase-3 medial UKA selection criteria for young Chinese males need further exploration to obtain the best treatment effect.

Outcomes of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty After Aseptic Revision to Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Comparative Study of 768 TKAs and 578 UKAs Revised to TKAs from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (1994 to 2011)

BACKGROUND

The general recommendation for a failed primary unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is revision to a total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of the present study was to compare the outcomes, intraoperative data, and mode of failure of primary UKAs and primary TKAs revised to TKAs.

METHODS

The study was based on 768 failed primary TKAs revised to TKAs (TKA→TKA) and 578 failed primary UKAs revised to TKAs (UKA→TKA) reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register between 1994 and 2011. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) including the EuroQol EQ-5D, the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and visual analog scales assessing satisfaction and pain were used. We performed Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses adjusting for propensity score to assess the survival rate and the risk of re-revision and multiple linear regression analyses to estimate the differences between the two groups in mean PROM scores.

RESULTS

Overall, 12% in the UKA→TKA group and 13% in the TKA→TKA group underwent re-revision between 1994 and 2011. The ten-year survival percentage of UKA→TKA versus TKA→TKA was 82% versus 81%, respectively (p = 0.63). There was no difference in the overall risk of re-revision for UKA→TKA versus TKA→TKA (relative risk [RR] = 1.2; p = 0.19), or in the PROM scores. However, the risk of re-revision was two times higher for TKA→TKA patients who were greater than seventy years of age at the time of revision (RR = 2.1; p = 0.05). A loose tibial component (28% versus 17%), pain alone (22% versus 12%), instability (19% versus 19%), and deep infection (16% versus 31%) were major causes of re-revision for UKA→TKA versus TKA→TKA, respectively, but the observed differences were not significant, with the exception of deep infection, which was significantly greater in the TKA→TKA group (RR = 2.2; p = 0.03). The surgical procedure of TKA→TKA took a longer time (mean of 150 versus 114 minutes) and more of the procedures required stems (58% versus 19%) and stabilization (27% versus 9%) compared with UKA→TKA.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite TKA→TKA seeming to be a technically more difficult surgical procedure, with a higher percentage of re-revisions due to deep infection compared with UKA→TKA, the overall outcomes of UKA→TKA and TKA→TKA were similar.

Are Revisions of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasties More Like a Primary or Revision TKA?

If revision is required, most unicompartmental arhroplasties (UKAs) are converted to total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) and conflicting results regarding surgical complexity and outcome have been reported in publications. 48 UKAs converted to a TKA between 1998 and 2009 were matched based on age, gender, and body mass index, pre-operative Knee Society Score, length of follow-up, and date of the index surgery to 48 primary TKAs and 48 revision TKAs. Surgical characteristics, clinical outcomes, and complications were compared at a mean follow-up of 7 ± 4 years. Even if a revision of UKA is technically less demanding than a revision TKA, functional scores, quality of life, complications and survival rate after revision UKA are more comparable to a revision than primary TKA.

Revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty

The risk of revision following unicompartmental arthroplasty (UKA) is greater compared with primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Some surgeons report that UKA revision is straightforward with outcomes comparable to TKA. We reviewed all Oxford medial UKAs and TKAs performed at our institution over a five year period. Patient reported outcomes were compared between revised UKAs, successful UKAs and primary TKAs. Out of 546 Oxford medial UKAs, twenty-nine (5.3%) were revised at a mean of 25months. The commonest indications for revision were aseptic loosening and progression of osteoarthritis. Ten patients (34%) required augments, stemmed implants or bone grafts. Outcomes following revision were poorer than those following successful UKA and primary TKA, and were a consequence of poor pre-operative function rather than the complexity of surgery.

UKA can be safely revised to primary knee arthroplasty by using an autologous bone plate from the proximal lateral tibia

The bone-preservation by UKA in medial osteoarthritis constitutes only an advantage if in the case of revision an unconstrained TKA can be implanted. The aim of this study was to evaluate a revision technique using an autologous bone slice from the lateral to the medial proximal tibia. We report on 17 patients with a mean follow up of 3.1years. Patient's satisfaction and pain, WOMAC- and Oxford-Knee-Score, radiological and clinical knee symptoms/function were assessed. No loosening, wear or implant subsidence could be detected during the follow up. In comparison with results after primary TKA in the literature we found our clinical results to be within the range. The study demonstrates that thismethod is safe and produces good midterm results.

Rehabilitation outcomes following revision for failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

To investigate the post-operative outcomes of a revised UKA to a TKA compared to a primary TKA.

METHODS

33 revised UKA were matched to primary TKA and assessed using SF-36, Oxford Knee Scores (OKS) and Knee Society Scores (KSS).

RESULTS

Both cohorts attained statistically similar SF-36 scores (p > 0.05). KSS improved by 51.12 in rev-UKA and 50.25 in primary TKA (p = 0.977) at 2 years. OKS scores were similar at 6 months (p = 0.094) and 2 years (p = 0.235)..

INTERPRETATION

Revision of UKA does not require a longer period of rehabilitation to achieve satisfactory return to function.

Revising an HTO or UKA to TKA: is it more like a primary TKA or a revision TKA?

Forty-nine patients revised from UKA to TKA and 43 from HTO to TKA were matched to 43 aseptic, both component revision TKAs (rTKA) and 97 primary TKAs. At a mean of 4.8 years, the KSS and function scores in the UKA to TKA, HTO to TKA and primary TKA cohorts were similar. Total operative times were significantly higher in the HTO to TKA and rTKA groups. LOS was shorter in the primary TKA cohort. The rate of complications and reoperations were higher in HTO to TKA and rTKA compared to UKA to TKA and primary TKA. Thus, revising an HTO and UKA both had functional outcomes more similar to a primary TKA, however, the complication rate of revising an HTO was similar to an rTKA.

Revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: implants used and causes of failure

Objective

to determine the causes of unicondylar knee arthroplasty failures, as well as identify the implants used and the need of bone grafting in patients undergoing revision UKA in Center of Knee Surgery at the Instituto Nacional de Traumatologia e Ortopedia (INTO) in the period between January 1990 and January 2013.

Methods

a retrospective analysis of the medical documentation and imaging, determining the cause of failure of UKA and the time of its occurrence, as well as prosthetic components implanted during the review and the need for bone grafting.

Results

in this study, 27 UKA failures in 26 patients were included. Collapse of one or more components was the main cause of failure, occurring in 33% of patients. Aseptic failure was identified in 30% of cases, progression of osteoarthrosis in 15%, infection and pain 7% each, and osteolysis and polyethylene failure in 4% each. Early failure occurred in 41% of all revisions of UKA and late failure in 59%. 23 patients have undergone revision of UK.

Conclusion

in 35% of revisions the use of bone grafting was needed in tibial area; in 3 cases we needed allograft from Tissue Bank. We did not use metal increase in any of the revision. In one patient we used implant constraint for instability.

Is unicompartmental-to-unicompartmental revision knee arthroplasty a reliable option? Case-control study

BACKGROUND

In selected patients with failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), revision UKA is a reliable option and may even provide lower morbidity rates and better functional outcomes compared to revision total knee arthroplasty.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In a multicentre retrospective study of 425 knees requiring revision surgery after UKA, 36 knees were managed with revision UKA.

RESULTS

Of the 36 knees, 3 (8.33%) required iterative revision surgery, for aseptic loosening. After a mean follow-up of 8.3 years, the mean IKS knee and function scores were high (93.81/100 and 90.77/100, respectively).

DISCUSSION

In carefully selected patients, UKA-to-UKA revision performed according to a rigorous operative technique deserves a role in the surgical strategy for failed UKA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, multicentre retrospective case-control study.

The effects of primary implant bearing design on the complexity of revision unicondylar knee arthroplasty

Comparisons of fixed- (FB) and mobile-bearing (MB) implants have failed to demonstrate a superiority of one design over the other. Despite showing equally successful outcomes, the wear patterns and small particulate debris associated with MB implants have been linked to an increased prevalence of osteolysis. This study compared the complexity of revision surgery for both bearing types. Operative time, use of augmentation and/or bone grafts, and the level of constraint required during revision were used to assess complexity. It was found that MB knees more frequently required tibial augmentation in our sample population (P=0.020), but overall surgical complexity was equivalent for revisions of both implant designs. These data suggest that additional research pertaining to the potential differences between implants be investigated.

Fixed- versus mobile-bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasty: are failure modes different?

PURPOSE

An ongoing controversy exists on whether mobile-bearing design is superior over fixed-bearing design in unicondylar knee arthroplasties (UKAs). The present study conducted a systematic review to ascertain differences in performance between fixed- and mobile-bearing designs in UKAs.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Scopus and the Cochrane Library. A total of 9 comparative studies involving 915 knees comparing outcomes of mobile-bearing UKAs with fixed-bearing UKAs were included in the current analysis. Outcomes of interest included knee function, quality of life, radiographic outcomes, reasons and incidence of reoperation, timing of failures, and survivorship.

RESULTS

The results presented no significant differences between the two designs in terms of knee scores, range of motion, limb alignment, implant positioning, incidence of radiolucent lines and overall reoperation rates. However, their differences have been noted in their modes and timing of failures. Early failures are related to the risk of bearing dislocation in the mobile-bearing design. In contrast, later failures are related to the risk of polyethylene wear in the fixed-bearing design.

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence has not confirmed the advantage of mobile-bearing UKAs over fixed-bearing UKAs but pointed out specific modes of failure.

Do bone loss and reconstruction procedures differ at revision of cemented unicompartmental knee prostheses according to the use of metal-back or all-polyethylene tibial component?

INTRODUCTION

Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) revision are known but the severity of bone loss and the need for reconstruction are not detailed for different tibial implants.

HYPOTHESIS

Metal-backing UKA revision exposes the patient to more severe tibial bone loss and requires more substantial reconstruction procedures than cemented polyethylene UKA revision.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective series of 23 revisions of UKA to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) compared 11 all-polyethylene UKAs with 12 metal-backing UKAs. Factors that contributed to failure were aseptic loosening (n=12) and osteoarthritis evolution (n=11). Both groups were similar regarding the demographic and clinical features. We reported bone loss and the reconstruction procedure to fill it according to the initially used tibial implant. The results were evaluated with the IKS score to a follow-up of 37 months (range, 24-67 months).

RESULTS

There were more tibial segmental bone loss (10 versus 3) and more metal wedges (8/12 versus 2/11) in metal-backing UKA revision (P<0.05). Tibial stems were more often used in metal-backing UKA revision (12/12 versus 7/11) (P=0.04). The results of TKA at follow-up did not differ according to whether the revised tibial implant was all polyethylene (IKS=155 [range, 107-195]) or metal-back (IKS=155 [range, 127-172]).

DISCUSSION

This study suggests that metal-backing UKA revision exposes the patient to more severe tibial bone loss requiring more substantial reconstruction. These results must be confirmed on a larger population, but surgeons should be alerted to this kind of revision surgery, which warrants having available a revision knee prothesis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, case-control study.

Factors associated with poor outcomes following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: redefining the "classic" indications for surgery

Indications for UKA for isolated osteoarthritis of the knee remain controversial. Two hundred twenty-nine UKA that were performed at our institution were evaluated for which factors were associated with a poor outcome. BMI >35 was correlated with lower KSS scores than patients with BMI <35. In contrast to prior reports, patients younger than 60 years old had higher scores than patients 60 years and older at 2 years. Women had an unacceptably high short-term revision rate for any reason of 6.5%. Popularity for UKA has increased, and a more in depth investigation of predictors of poor outcomes demonstrates that younger patients appear to have better results. Obese patients continue to improve up to 2 years after surgery and should not be precluded from undergoing UKA.

Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial - TOPKAT: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In the majority of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee the disease originates in the medial compartment. There are two fundamentally different approaches to knee replacement for patients with unicompartmental disease: some surgeons feel that it is always best to replace both the knee compartments with a total knee replacement (TKR); whereas others feel it is best to replace just the damaged component of the knee using a partial or unicompartment replacement (UKR). Both interventions are established and well-documented procedures. Little evidence exists to prove the clinical and cost-effectiveness of either management option. This provides an explanation for the high variation in treatment of choice by individual surgeons for the same knee pathology.The aim of the TOPKAT study will be to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of TKRs compared to UKRs in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis.

METHODS/DESIGN

The design of the study is a single layer multicentre superiority type randomised controlled trial of unilateral knee replacement patients. Blinding will not be possible as the surgical scars for each procedure differ.We aim to recruit 500 patients from approximately 28 secondary care orthopaedic units from across the UK including district general and teaching hospitals. Participants will be randomised to either UKR or TKR. Randomisation will occur using a web-based randomisation system. The study is pragmatic in terms of implant selection for the knee replacement operation. Participants will be followed up for 5 years. The primary outcome is the Oxford Knee Score, which will be collected via questionnaires at 2 months, 1 year and then annually to 5 years. Secondary outcomes will include cost-effectiveness, patient satisfaction and complications data.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN03013488; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01352247.

Effect of initial tibial resection thickness on outcomes of revision UKA

The frequency of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) procedures has increased rapidly over the past decade. Some conflicting evidence exists concerning UKA revision. Some studies have found UKA revisions to be comparable with primary total knee arthroplasty, whereas others have found that UKA revisions require a higher need for tibial stems and augments and have more complications and worse results. This study seeks to determine the effect of a conservative tibial resection in UKA on the ease of revision and its outcomes in a consecutive patient cohort.Thirty-five patients underwent 37 conversions of a medial UKA to a total knee arthroplasty. Clinical, functional, and radiological data were evaluated. At revision, a primary total knee arthroplasty implant was used in 24 (88.8%) patients who underwent a conservative tibial resection during their UKA compared with only 3 (30%) patients who underwent an aggressive tibial resection (P<.001). The odds ratio of needing an augment or stem was 26.8 (95% confidence interval, 3.71-194) when an aggressive resection was performed compared with a conservative resection during the UKA.The results indicate that revision of a medial UKA can be comparable with a primary TKA when a conservative tibial resection is performed at the time of the primary UKA. It is possible to preoperatively predict which patients might need the use of augmentation and stems during UKA revision. This data should guide surgeons to strive for the most conservative UKA tibial resection possible in patients undergoing medial UKA.

Treatment of periprosthetic tibial plateau fractures in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: plates versus cannulated screws

INTRODUCTION

Periprosthetic tibial plateau fractures (TPF) are rare but represent a serious complication in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. The most common treatment for these fractures is osteosynthesis with cannulated screws or plates. The aim of this study was to evaluate two different treatment options for periprosthetic fractures. The hypothesis was that angle-stable plates show significantly higher fracture loads than fixation with cannulated screws.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twelve matched, paired fresh-frozen tibiae with periprosthetic TPF were used for this study. In Group A, osteosyntheses with cannulated screws were performed, whereas in Group B plates fixated the periprosthetic fracture. DEXA bone density measurement and standard X-rays (AP and lateral) were performed before loading the tibiae under standardised conditions with a maximum load of up to 10.0 kN. After the specimens had been loaded, fracture patterns and fracture loads were analysed and correlated with BMD, BMI, bodyweight (BW), age and size of the tibial implant.

RESULTS

In the plate group all tibiae fracture occured with a median load of F (max) = 2.64 (0.45-5.68) kN, whereas in the group with cannulated screws fractures occurred at a mean load of F (max) = 1.50 (0.27-3.51) kN. The difference was statistically significant at p < 0.05.

DISCUSSION

Angle-stable plates showed significantly higher fracture loads than fixation with cannulated screws. Cannulated screws show a reduced stability of the tibial plateau. Therefore in periprosthetic TPF, osteosyntheses with angle-stable plates should be recommended instead of cannulated screws.

Intra-operative joint gap kinematics in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The use of an offset type tensor for total knee arthroplasty that can be set with patellofemoral joint reduction and femoral component placement enables surgeons to assess soft tissues in the physiological postoperative knee condition, showing different kinematic pattern of soft tissues in varus osteoarthritic knees between cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty. However, gap kinematics in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is unclear.

METHODS

Using a newly developed tensor that is designed to assess soft tissue balance throughout the full range of motion with femoral component placement, we assessed the intra-operative joint gap measurements of unicompartmental knee arthroplasties performed at 0, 10, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120 and 135° of flexion in 20 osteoarthritic patients. In addition, the kinematic pattern of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty was compared with those of cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty that were calculated as medial compartment gap from the previous series of this study.

FINDINGS

While the joint gap measurements of unicompartmental knee arthroplasties increased from full extension to extension (10° of flexion), these values remained constant throughout the full range of motion. Of note, the gap values of cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty were significantly smaller from midrange to deep flexion compared with posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty, and furthermore unicompartmental knee arthroplasty showed a significantly smaller gap from extension to midrange flexion compared with cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty.

INTERPRETATION

Accordingly, we conclude that the intra-operative joint gap kinematic pattern in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty differs from the pattern in total knee arthroplasty.

Decision making for knee replacement: variation in treatment choice for late stage medial compartment osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Patients with medial unicompartmental osteoarthritic disease of the knee requiring arthroplasty can be treated with either Total or Unicompartmental Knee Replacement (TKR or UKR). Currently, the decision to choose one operation over another is not well defined and may depend on the profile of the surgeon consulted. We tested the hypothesis that different surgeons will select different treatment for identical patients requiring knee replacement.

METHOD

Four different surgeons, representing four different levels of expertise, made a forced choice decision of whether they would perform TKR or UKR based on radiographs alone and subsequent additional clinical information including gender and age, in 140 patients. Individual surgeon repeatability was tested by repeat assessment 3 months later.

RESULTS

The knee surgeon from the UKR design centre would have performed a UKR in up to 88% of the patients. The remaining surgeons would have performed UKR in 29-48% of patients; a variation in decision making of up to 59%. Additional clinical information had little effect on decision making with surgeons maintaining their radiographic based choice in 80 to 87% of cases. The repeatability study showed high within surgeon consistency for treatment choice.

CONCLUSION

Surgeons, given identical information, do not concur on treatment for patients with the same pathology. The decision making process appears heavily influenced by radiographic findings but individual surgeons are consistent with their own treatment choice. The study shows that consensus treatment for medial osteoarthritis of the knee remains in question.

[Clinical and functional outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: influence of the mechanical axis correction]

OBJECTIVES

Clinical and functional outcome of the knee after Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty (UKA) and its correlation with lower limb mechanical axis correction.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We have reviewed the outcome of 29 UKA, corresponding to 29 patients, with an average follow-up of 4.5 years (3-6 years). The distribution was, 21 women and 8 men, 11 unicompartmental osteoarthritis, 17 femoral condyle necrosis and 1 tibial plateau necrosis, and 27 medial versus 2 lateral affected compartments. The clinical-functional situation of the knees was assessed through the Knee Society Score (KSS), and the mechanical axis through long standing film. To calculate the statistical non-parametric correlation between the different parameters, Spearman's coefficient was used.

RESULTS

In the last review, the increases in the mean clinical KSS and functional KSS were significantly different, with +31.24 (±15.7) and +43.66 (±18.4) points, respectively. The mean change in the femorotibial angle was 2°±4°. We did not find any correlation with statistical significance between the average increases obtained in KS scores and: the alignment of the knee before and after the surgery; the thickness of the inserted polyethylene; the variation of the posterior tibial inclination; Insall-Salvati's index. There was no statistically significant association between the variation in the total KS score and the type of implant or the surgical technique used.

CONCLUSION

We did not find any correlation between the clinical results and the radiological measurements in this population.

Partial or total replacement of a unicompartmental knee prosthesis by another unicompartmental knee prosthesis: a reasonable option? About 22 cases

Twenty-two patients who received primary unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (21 medial and 1 lateral) were reoperated between 2001 and 2010 for partial or total replacement of their implant without using a TKA. Of the 21 patients (1 bilateral) reoperated for PE insert wear (11), PE fracture (3), infection (2), and loosening or malposition (6), 3 patients died and 2 were lost to follow up. The remaining 17 cases had their clinical scores significantly improved. Only one re-revision occurred and consisted of a simple change of PE insert at 9 years, on a very heavy and very active patient. It therefore seems possible and reasonable for now to continue partial or total replacement of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty by another unicompartmental knee arthroplasty without using a TKA.

Revision of medial Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement to a total knee replacement: similar to a primary?

Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is an option for the treatment of isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis. A commonly perceived potential advantage is that revision of a UKR is straightforward. The purpose of this study was to determine the early outcomes and the level of complexity of revisions of Oxford UKRs performed at our hospital. A retrospective review of a prospective database of all phase III Oxford UKRs was undertaken. This identified 89 Oxford UKRs which were revised at our institution between 2002 and 2008. The median time from the primary procedure to revision was 19 months (interquartile range 2-73 months). Nine were revised to another UKR. Eighty were revised to a total knee replacement (TKR). Fifty-three were revised with primary TKR components. Twenty-seven were revised using stems and/or augments. The median overall tibial component thickness (including augments) was 15 mm. Forty-five knees had an overall tibial component thickness greater than 15 mm. A primary Oxford UKR bearing thickness of greater than 6mm was associated with an increased likelihood of requiring revision components. On the basis of this review, tibial bone defects were commonly encountered when revising UKRs. Reconstruction with either an augment and a stem, or thick polyethylene component was often required. We recommend that the potential complexity of revision for UKR failure should be borne in mind when considering a primary Oxford UKR.

Revision of failed unicompartmental knee replacement to total knee replacement

Recent reports suggest good outcome results following unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). However, a number of authors have commented on the problem of osseous defects requiring technically difficult revision surgery. We reviewed clinical outcomes following revision total knee replacement (TKR) for failed UKR and analysed the reasons for failure and the technical aspects of the revision surgery. Between 2001 and 2010 our institute performed 132 UKR's out of which 33 required revision to TKR during a period 6 years. Demographics, details and indications for primary and revision surgery, the revised prosthesis including augments, technical difficulties and complications were noted. Patient outcome assessment was based on the Oxford knee score (OKS). Survival analysis for the UKR prosthesis was calculated using Kaplan-Meier Survival curves. Reasons for revision included aseptic loosening, persistent pain, dislocated meniscus, mal-alignment and other compartment osteoarthritis. Median time to revision was 19 months (range 2-159). Using revision as the end-point the survival proportion at 5-years was 69%. 18 revisions required additional intra-operative constructs including stemmed implants, wedge augmentation or bone graft. The mean 1 year post-operative OKS was 29 compared to 39 for primary TKR during the same period (p<0.001). Aseptic loosening was the commonest mode of failure. UKR survivorship at a non-specialist institute is considerably lower than at originating centres. Two thirds of the revisions were technically difficult and required additional constructs. The clinical outcome after revision surgery was inferior to that of primary TKR. The role of UKR needs to be more clearly defined.

Revision of unicondylar to total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

Isolated unicompartmental osteoarthritis in the young patient is a difficult problem to treat; they may be too young to consider total knee arthroplasty due to difficulties with inevitable future revision. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is one possible solution as it is perceived by some as being a smaller surgical insult than total knee arthroplasty, with easier revision to total knee arthroplasty than a revision total knee arthroplasty. A total knee arthroplasty performed as a revision unicondylar knee arthroplasty is thought by some authors to have equivalent functional outcomes to a primary total knee replacement.

However, there have been several studies suggesting that revision is not as simple as suggested, and that function is not as good as primary total knee arthroplasty.

We performed a systematic review of the literature regarding outcomes after revision of a unicondylar knee arthroplasty.

Although there are many studies proposing selective use of the unicondylar knee arthroplasty, there are a number of studies highlighting difficulties with revision and poorer outcomes, and, therefore, the unicondylar knee arthroplasty cannot be considered a small procedure that will 'buy time' for the patient, and have results equal to a primary knee arthroplasty when revised. Further controlled studies, ideally randomised, are required before final conclusions can be drawn.

Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty database analysis: is there a winner?

BACKGROUND

TKA and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) are both utilized to treat unicompartmental knee arthrosis. While some surgeons assume UKA provides better function than TKA, this assumption is based on greater final outcome scores rather than on change in scores and many patients with UKA have higher preoperative scores.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We therefore asked whether TKA would demonstrate (1) better change in clinical outcome scores from preoperative to postoperative states and (2) better survivorship than UKA.

METHODS

We evaluated 4087 patients with 5606 TKAs and 179 patients with 279 UKAs performed between 1978 and 2009. Patients with TKA were older and heavier than patients with UKA (mean age, 68 versus 66 years; mean BMI, 32 versus 29). We compared preoperative, latest postoperative, and change in Knee Society Clinical Rating System (KSCRS), SF-12, and WOMAC scores. Minimum followup was 2 years (UKA: mean, 7 years; range, 2.0-23 years; TKA: mean, 6.5 years; range, 2.0-33 years). Preoperative outcome measure scores (WOMAC, SF-12, KSCRS) were higher in the UKA group.

RESULTS

Patients with UKA had higher postoperative KSCRS and SF-12 mental scores. Changes in score for all WOMAC domains were similar between groups. Total KSCRS changes in score were similar between groups, although patients with TKA had higher knee scores (49 versus 43) but lower function scores than UKA (21 versus 26). Cumulative revision rate was higher for UKA than for TKA (13% versus 7%). Kaplan-Meier survivorship at 5 and 10 years was 95% and 90%, respectively, for UKA and 98% and 95%, respectively, for TKA.

CONCLUSIONS

While patients with UKA had higher pre- and postoperative scores than patients with TKA, the changes in scores were similar in both groups and survival appeared higher in patients with TKA.

Decision support needs of patients choosing between unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty for advanced medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee

Patients with isolated medial knee osteoarthritis are often candidates for both unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty and must choose between these 2 options. We interviewed 20 such patients to describe their decision support needs and 14 knee arthroplasty surgeons to describe their requirements in supporting patients' decision making. Patients and surgeons both desired active patient participation in the decision. Of 14 surgeons, 13 identified a knowledgeable patient as the most important factor in facilitating decision making, but many worried about confusing patients from information overload. Patients, on the other hand, demonstrated poor knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of each surgical option, and 17 of 20 desired supplemental educational resources. Thus, most patients choosing between unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty would appreciate and benefit from a decision support intervention.

Computer-assisted revision of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

The authors performed a matched-paired study comparing 22 computer-assisted surgery (CAS)-unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) revisions with a similar group of knee replacement revisions performed conventionally. The aim of the study was to assess differences in implants used in the revision, surgical time, limb alignment, joint line restoration, and procedure costs. In the conventional group, there was a higher percentage of posterior stabilized (PS) and condylar constrained knee (CCK) implants, as well as a higher percentage of augmentations/stems/offsets. There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative mechanical axis, surgical time, or hospital stay. There were fewer outliers and better joint line restoration in the CAS group. More blood transfusions were performed in the conventional group, and costs were higher in this group as well.

Conversion of lateral unicompartmental arthroplasty to anterior cruciate retaining tricompartmental knee arthroplasty

This case report presents the conversion of a lateral unicompartmental arthroplasty (UKA) to an anterior cruciate retaining tricompartmental knee arthroplasty. The patient presented with disease progression to the medial and patellofemoral compartments of the knee, in addition to significant varus deformity. During revision surgery, the previously implanted UKA device was found to be well fixed and in good condition. The conventional treatment option would be conversion to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, in this case conversion to a tricompartmental, ligament sparing arthroplasty via implantation of a bicompartmental knee arthroplasty (BKA) device was found to be feasible. In UKA revision cases where the device is functional, the current surgical approach may be an appropriate alternative to conventional TKA.

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a review of literature

There has been a resurgence of interest in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) for treatment of medial unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis (OA). Improved prosthetic design, minimally invasive surgical techniques, and strict patient selection criteria have resulted in improved survivorship and functional outcomes. A review of orthopedic literature was conducted regarding the advantages of UKA versus total knee arthroplasty (TKA), UKA indications, survivorship, conversion of UKA to TKA, rehabilitation, and outcomes. The UKA appears to be a viable option for patients with knee medial compartment OA, including younger and active patients. Survivorship rates of 94% to 97% at 10 years have been reported.

Outcome of revision of unicompartmental knee replacement

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Despite concerns regarding a higher risk of revision, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) continues to be used as an alternative to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). There are, however, limited data on the subsequent outcome when a UKA is revised. We examined the survivorship for primary UKA procedures that have been revised.

METHODS

We used data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) to analyze the survivorship of 1,948 revisions of primary UKA reported to the Registry between September 1999 and December 2008. This was compared to the results of revisions of primary TKA reported during the same period where both the femoral and tibial components were revised. The Kaplan-Meier method for modeling survivorship was used.

RESULTS

When a primary UKA was revised to another UKA (both major and minor revisions), it had a cumulative per cent revision (CPR) of 28 and 30 at 3 years, respectively. The CPR at 3 years when a UKA was converted to a TKA was 10. This is similar to the 3-year CPR (12) found earlier for primary TKA where both the femoral and tibial components were revised.

INTERPRETATION

When a UKA requires revision, the best outcome is achieved when it is converted to a TKA. This procedure does, however, have a major risk of re-revision, which is similar to the risk of re-revision of a primary TKA that has had both the femoral and tibial components revised.

Does bearing design influence midterm survivorship of unicompartmental arthroplasty?

Medial unicompartmental arthroplasties (UKA) are available with mobile- and fixed-bearing designs, with the advantages of one bearing over another unproven. We questioned whether the bearing design influenced clinical outcome, survivorship, the reason for revision, or the timing of failures. We retrospectively reviewed 179 patients (229 knees) who had medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties between 1990 and 2007; of these 79 knees had a mobile-bearing design and 150 knees a fixed-bearing design. Patients with mobile-bearing UKA had a minimum followup of 1 year (mean, 3.6 years; range, 1-11.3 years); those with fixed-bearing UKA a minimum followup of 1 year (mean, 8.1 years; range, 1-17.8 years). Patients were evaluated with clinical outcome scores and radiographically using the Knee Society rating system. Seven of 79 (9%) mobile-bearing knees underwent revision at a mean of 2.6 years, and 22 of 150 (15%) fixed-bearing knees underwent revision at a mean of 6.9 years. The 5-year cumulative survival rates were 88% (SE +/- 0.47, 95% CI 0.7229-1) and 96% (SE +/- 0.16, 95% CI 0.93-0.9979) for the mobile- and fixed-bearing designs respectively using the endpoint of revision surgery. We observed no differences in the indications or complexity of revision surgery between the groups and none in midterm survivorship.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, comparative study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.