Abstract
Multiple reports suggest good outcome results following unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). However, several authors report technically difficult revision surgery secondary to osseous defects. We reviewed clinical outcomes following revision total knee replacement for failed UKR and analysed the reasons for failure and the technical aspects of the revision surgery.
Between 2003 and 2009, thirty three revisions from unicompartmental knee replacement to total knee replacement were performed in thirty two patients at a single centre. Demographics, indications for the primary and revision procedures, details of the revised prosthesis including augments and any technical difficulties or complications were noted. Patient assessment included range of motion and the functional status of the affected knee in the form of the Oxford knee score questionnaire. Statistical analysis was performed with the Student t test.
All 33 revision knees were available for prospective clinical and radiological follow-up. The minimum duration of follow-up after revision surgery was 1 year (mean 3 years, range 1 – 7 years). The median interval between the original unicompartmental knee replacements to revision surgery was 19 months (range 2 – 159 months). The predominant cause of failure was aseptic loosening (50%). Other reasons included persistent pain (21%), dislocated meniscus (18%), mal-alignment (7%) and progression of symptomatic osteoarthritis in another compartment (4%). 18 of the 33 revision procedures required additional augments. During the revision surgery, 11 knees required a long tibial stem while 1 required a long femoral stem. 10 knees required medial tibial wedge augmentation; bone graft was used in 6 knees while a metal wedge augment was used in 4 to fill significant osseous defects. At the time of follow-up, range of movement averaged 103 degrees (range 70 – 120). The mean one year Oxford knee score, was 29 compared to 39 for primary total knee replacements performed during the same period in a comparable sample group of patients at our institute (p < 0.001). Three patients continued to have pain and two required re-revision; one for infection and one for loosening.
Aseptic loosening was the commonest mode of failure. Of the UKRs revised to TKRs, 90% were revised within 5 years. The majority of revisions required additional constructs. Oxford Knee Scores after revision surgery were inferior to those for primary TKR. The role of UKR needs to be more clearly defined.
