Abstract
Aims: The purpose of this study is to determine the causes of failed medial Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and assess the outcome after revision surgery.
Materials And Methods: From 1993 to 2003, sixty-nine Oxford UKA (58 patients) were revised to a total knee replacements (TKR) at this centre. The type of implant used at revision surgery, pre- and post-revision American Knee Society (AKS) and Tegner scores were analyzed retrospectively.
Results: The patient’s mean age at the time of UKA was 64.5 years (range: 50–79). The average pre-revision scores were as follows: AKS-Objective score was 41.2 (± 10.4), the AKS-functional score was 56.8 (±10.0) and the average Tegner score was 1.5 (±0.6). The mean follow-up period was 38.3 (range: 12–107) months. The common causes of failure were: lateral compartment osteoarthritis (34.0%), component loosening (30.4%) and early or late infection requiring two-stage revision surgery (14.3%). The majority were revised using a standard primary TKR implant and only six (9%) requiring augmentation stems. Patellar resurfacing was performed in 25% of cases. The mean polyethylene liner width of the revision TKR was 13.4mm (±3.7). The average post-revision scores were: AKS-Objective score 77.4 (±13.1), the AKS-functional AKS score 70 (±21.1) and the average Tegner score of 2.2 (±0.8). Three knees needed rerevision for infection of the revised implant.
Conclusions: Lateral compartment osteoarthritis was the commonest indication for revision surgery for a failed medial Oxford UKA. Revision of a UKA is technically easier and the results are superior to the published results of revision of a primary TKR. In more than 90% cases, no augmentation or stemmed implants were necessary.
Honorary Secretary – Mr Roger Smith. Correspondence should be addressed to BASK at the Royal College of Surgeons, 35 - 43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PN
