header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

General Orthopaedics

SURVIVAL OF THE MEDIAL OXFORD UNICOMPARTMENTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT AT A SPECIALIST ORTHOPAEDIC CENTRE

12th Combined Meeting of the Orthopaedic Associations (AAOS, AOA, AOA, BOA, COA, NZOA, SAOA)



Abstract

Background

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty provides a good alternative to total knee arthroplasty in patients with isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis. Reported ten-year survival for the Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is variable, ranging from 80.2% to 97.7% in the originator series. The aim of this study was to determine the survival and reasons for revision of the Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty when performed at a specialist orthopaedic centre.

Methods

Details of consecutive patients undergoing Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at our centre between January 2000 and December 2009 were collected prospectively. Failure of the implant was defined as conversion to total knee arthroplasty. Survival was determined using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results

There were 494 Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasties implanted in 425 patients for isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis. Mean age was 62.8 yrs (range 34.6-90.1 yrs) and 53.4% were female. During a mean follow-up time of 3.0 yrs (range 0.5-9.2 yrs), twenty-two knees (4.5%) were revised to a total knee arthroplasty. Reasons for revision were aseptic loosening of the femoral (n=8) or tibial component (n=2), undiagnosed pain (n=5), patellofemoral pain (n=2), infection (n=1), lateral meniscus tear (n=1), periprosthetic fracture (n=1), joint instability (n=1), and dislocation of meniscal bearing (n=1). Mean time to revision surgery from the primary procedure was 3.0 yrs. Eight-year survival for the cohort was 87.4%. The median pre-operative Oxford knee score was 62.5% which reduced to 27.7% at four years post-operatively.

Conclusion

This study has demonstrated our revision rate for the Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement is comparable to independent series and national registry data. Post-operative function in patients not revised was good. The commonest reason for failure was aseptic component loosening which usually occurred within two to four years. Extended follow-up may therefore be beneficial in these patients so these cases are identified early and subsequently revised.


G Matharu, 40 Mellish Road, Walsall WS4 2ED, UK