An evidence-based radiographic Decision Aid for meniscal-bearing
unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has been developed and
this study investigates its performance at an independent centre. Pre-operative radiographs, including stress views, from a consecutive
cohort of 550 knees undergoing arthroplasty (UKA or total knee arthroplasty;
TKA) by a single-surgeon were assessed. Suitability for UKA was
determined using the Decision Aid, with the assessor blinded to
treatment received, and compared with actual treatment received, which
was determined by an experienced UKA surgeon based on history, examination,
radiographic assessment including stress radiographs, and intra-operative
assessment in line with the recommended indications as described
in the literature.Aims
Patients and Methods
There is a large amount of evidence available
about the relative merits of unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty
(UKA and TKA). Based on the same evidence, different people draw
different conclusions and as a result, there is great variability
in the usage of UKA. The revision rate of UKA is much higher than TKA and so some
surgeons conclude that UKA should not be performed. Other surgeons
believe that the main reason for the high revision rate is that
UKA is easy to revise and, therefore, the threshold for revision
is low. They also believe that UKA has many advantages over TKA
such as a faster recovery, lower morbidity and mortality and better
function. They therefore conclude that UKA should be undertaken
whenever appropriate. The solution to this argument is to minimise the revision rate
of UKA, thereby addressing the main disadvantage of UKA. The evidence
suggests that this will be achieved if surgeons use UKA for at least
20% of their knee arthroplasties and use implants that are appropriate
for these broad indications. Cite this article:
The cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement
has been demonstrated to have superior fixation on radiographs and
a similar early complication rate compared with the cemented version.
However, a small number of cases have come to our attention where,
after an apparently successful procedure, the tibial component subsides into
a valgus position with an increased posterior slope, before becoming
well-fixed. We present the clinical and radiological findings of
these six patients and describe their natural history and the likely
causes. Two underwent revision in the early post-operative period,
and in four the implant stabilised and became well-fixed radiologically with
a good functional outcome. This situation appears to be avoidable by minor modifications
to the operative technique, and it appears that it can be treated
conservatively in most patients. Cite this article:
