ARE LATERAL UNI-COMPARTMENTAL REPLACEMENTS AS GOOD AS MEDIAL?

Abstract

Background: Although many knee surgeons routinely perform unicompartmental replacement (UKR) for medial compartment arthrosis there is still reluctance to perform lateral UKR’s as they are generally thought to be less satisfactory. The purpose of the present study was to prospectively compare the outcome of lateral UKR’s with medial UKR’s using the AMC Uniglide knee implant.

Methods: Between 2002 and 2005, 29 lateral fixed bearing AMC Uniglide UKR’s were performed at our unit. American Knee Society (AKS), Oxford and WOMAC scores were recorded pre-operatively and at two years post-op and compared with the results of 50 medial mobile bearing and 50 medial fixed bearing AMC Uni-glide UKR’s performed during the same time period. Data was acquired by a research nurse and recorded prospectively on the Bristol Knee Database. The mean ages of the patients were: 63 years in the lateral UKR group was, 62 years in the medial mobile bearing group and 69 in the medial fixed bearing group. The groups were equally sex matched with a predominate number of females in each group. There was no difference between the pre-operative scores for the 3 groups.

Results: At one-year review, the 3 groups had similar mean scores: (table removed)

Conclusions: This study suggests that at two years the quality of outcome of Lateral UKR’s is at least equivalent to both fixed and mobile bearing medial compartment UKR’s. However, continued long-term survivorship studies are needed to assess failure rates of Lateral fixed bearing UKR’s and particularly to evaluate progression of arthritis in the medial compartment. The procedure should form part of the knee surgeons’ armamentarium, but the differences in the operative techniques for lateral and medial UKR must be appreciated.