Abstract
Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the functional results and ease of performing revision surgery after a primary unicompartmental arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty.
Method: 114 revision TKRs had data collected prospectively as part of our unit’s Knee Database. 45 were revisions of UKR’s and 79 revisions of TKR’s. This data included Bristol Knee Scores (BKS), reason for revision, use of implant augments and bone graft. Measurements were also made of the ability to restore joint-line after revision.
Results: In both groups there was a significant improvement in BKS post-operatively. In the UKR group the commonest reason for revision was progression of disease, while in the TKR group it was aseptic loosening. Bone graft was required in significantly fewer UKR cases (20% vs 40%, P< 0.05). Distal femoral augments were used in 45% of the TKR revisions but in none of the revisions from UKR. The joint line was elevated in a significantly higher proportion of revision from TKR cases versus revision from UKR cases (P< 0.001). Revisions from UKR had higher Total BKS and Functional BKS score than revisions from TKR.
Conclusions: Revision TKR after a primary UKR requires less bone graft, fewer augments, restores the joint line more frequently and gives improved functional results over revisions after primary TKR.
The abstracts were prepared by Mr Roger Smith. Correspondence should be addressed to him at the British Association for Surgery of the Knee, c/o BOA, Royal College of Surgeons of England, 35–43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PN.
