Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

PERIPROSTHETIC TIBIAL PLATEAU FRACTURE FOLLOWING UNICOMPARTMENTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY



Abstract

Introduction Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is an increasingly utilised alternative to tibial osteotomy and total knee arthroplasty in patients with single compartment degenerative disease. We report on four fractures of the medial tibial plateau following UKR.

Methods We retrospectively reviewed four cases with periprosthetic tibial plateau fractures following unicompartmental knee replacement. Each arthroplasty, performed between 1999 and 2002, was done in a community teaching hospital by a single orthopaedic surgeon and a senior level assistant. All patients had medial compartment osteoarthritis confirmed both radiographically and arthroscopically prior to arthroplasty surgery. The arthroplasties were performed by four different surgeons and three different arthroplasty systems were used. All cases were reviewed using the documented chart histories and x-ray evaluation. Each surgeon was contacted individually for the relevant case history and x-rays. The study population was composed of four females, and no males with a mean age of 63.5 years (range 58 to 68). Two patients (50%) had simultaneous bilateral UKRs performed. The remaining two patients had unilateral procedures, involving one right and one left knee. Two patients were clinically obese, and one patient had had a previous ipsilateral high tibial osteotomy.

Results The total number of fractures was four, involving three left knees and one right knee. Of the bilateral arthroplasties each patient sustained a unilateral fracture of the left knee. The patient with the previous tibial osteotomy sustained an ipsilateral fracture. Two fractures involved traumatic falls, the remaining fractures had no history of trauma. The mean post-operative period to fracture was 95.75 days with a range of 5 to 195 days. Two patients had revision surgery to total knee arthroplasty. One patient underwent internal fixation of the fracture with retention of the original prosthetic components and exchange of the polyethylene bearing. The remaining patient underwent revision of the tibial component with concurrent internal fixation and was subsequently revised to total knee arthroplasty as the result of failure. Subsequent to the described surgery all fractures have healed with no further surgical intervention.

Conclusions This series, whilst small, demonstrates that tibial periprosthetic fracture following UKR is a previously unreported but important cause of failure. Revision surgery to total knee replacement appears to be a reasonable salvage option.

The abstracts were prepared by Mr Jerzy Sikorski. Correspondence should be addressed to him at the Australian Orthopaedic Association, Ground Floor, William Bland Centre, 229 Macquarie Street, Sydney NSW 2000, Australia.

None of the authors have received any payment or consideration from any source for the conduct of this study.