Abstract
Objective
To investigate the reasons for revision of Oxford Unicondylar Knee Replacement (UKR). Does insert size used relate to requirement for revision?
Methods
We retrospectively reviewed the cases needing revision from a single surgeon consecutive series of 209 ‘Oxford’ UKRs. 10 cases required early (within 2 years) revision. The reasons for revision were investigated. A comparison of cases requiring revision by insert size implanted was made.
Results
10 cases required revision. 2 patients suffered from Sjorgens Syndrome which was undiagnosed at the time of primary surgery and underwent revision for ongoing pain, 2 cases fractured the tibia beneath the implant, 2 were revised for sepsis, and 3 cases were revised for ongoing pain without obvious cause. 1 case was revised for tibial component loosening. A significantly greater proportion of cases in which a size 6 insert was used required revision (4 of 11), compared with size 4 (1 of 44)(p=0.001) or size 5 (0 of 28)(p=0.002), and also compared with size 3 (3 of 31)(p=0.005). In cases where a size 3 insert is measured with this prosthesis, one option is to take a further tibial cut to rather use a size 6 insert. Given the five-fold increase in likelihood for requiring revision found in our series, we would recommend against this step.
Conclusion
In conclusion we report a successful series of Oxford unicondylar knees taking early revision surgery as the endpoint. We recommend caution when considering a further cut when initial measurement suggests a size 3 insert, as in our series size 6 inserts showed a 5 fold increase in revision rate when compared to size 3.
