Abstract
Unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis can be treated with either Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) or Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty (UKA) and controversy remains as to which treatment is best. UKA has been reported to offer a variety of advantages, however many still see it as a temporary procedure with higher revision rates.
We aimed to clarify the role of UKA and evaluate the long-term and revision outcomes. We retrospectively reviewed the pain, function and total Knee Society Score (KSS) for 602 UKA and 602 TKA in age and gender matched patients over ten years.
The total pre-operative KSS scores were not significantly different between UKA and TKA (42.67 vs 40.54 P=0.021). KSS (pain) was significantly better in the TKA group (44.39 vs 41.38 P= 0.007) at one year and at five years post-operatively (45.33 vs 43.12 P=0.004). There was no statistically significant difference for KSS (total) in TKA and UKA during the study period. 16.3% of UKA and 20.1% of TKA had a documented complication. 79 UKA (13%) and 36 TKA (6%) required revision surgery. Despite the higher revision rate, pre-operative KSS (total) before revision was not significantly different between UKA and TKA (42.94 vs 42.43 P=0.84). Performance for UKAs was inferior to TKAs in Kaplan-Meier cumulative survival analysis at 10 years (P<0.001).
Both UKA and TKA are viable treatment options for unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis, each with their own merits. UKA is associated with fewer complications whereas TKA provides better initial pain relief and is more durable and less likely to require revision.
