Aims. The aim of this study was to describe the pattern of revision indications for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and any change to this pattern for UKA patients over the last 20 years, and to investigate potential associations to changes in surgical practice over time. Methods. All primary knee arthroplasty surgeries performed due to primary osteoarthritis and their revisions reported to the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register from 1997 to 2017 were included. Complex surgeries were excluded. The data was linked to the National Patient Register and the Civil Registration System for comorbidity, mortality, and emigration status. TKAs were propensity score matched 4:1 to UKAs. Revision risks were compared using competing risk Cox proportional hazard regression with a shared γ frailty component. Results. Aseptic loosening (loosening) was the most common revision indication for both UKA (26.7%) and TKA (29.5%). Pain and disease progression accounted for 54.6% of the remaining UKA revisions. Infections and instability accounted for 56.1% of the remaining TKA revision. The incidence of revision due to loosening or pain decreased over the last decade, being the second and third least common indications in 2017. There was a decrease associated with fixation method for pain (hazard ratio (HR) 0.40; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.94) and loosening (HR 0.29; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.81) for cementless compared to cemented, and units UKA usage for pain (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.91), and loosening (HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.70) for high usage. Conclusion. The overall revision patterns for UKA and TKA for the last 20 years are comparable to previous published patterns. We found large changes to UKA revision patterns in the last decade, and with the current surgical practice, revision due to pain or loosening are significantly less likely. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(12):923–931

Aims. Treatment of end-stage anteromedial osteoarthritis (AMOA) of the knee is commonly approached using one of two surgical strategies: medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA). In this study we aim to investigate if there is any difference in outcome for patients undergoing UKA or TKA, when treated by high-volume surgeons, in high-volume centres, using two different clinical guidelines. The two strategies are ‘UKA whenever possible’ vs TKA for all patients with AMOA. Methods. A total of 501 consecutive AMOA patients (301 UKA) operated on between 2013 to 2016 in two high-volume centres were included. Centre One employed clinical guidelines for the treatment of AMOA allowing either UKA or TKA, but encouraged UKA wherever possible. Centre Two used clinical guidelines that treated all patients with a TKA, regardless of wear pattern. TKA patients were included if they had isolated AMOA on preoperative radiographs. Data were collected from both centres’ local databases. The primary outcome measure was change in Oxford Knee Score (OKS), and the proportion of patients achieving the patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) at one-year follow-up. The data were 1:1 propensity score matched before regression models were used to investigate potential differences. Results. The matched cohort included 400 patients (mean age 67 years (SD 9.55), 213 (53%) female, mean BMI 30.2 kg/m. 2. , 337 (84%) American Society of Anesthesiologists grade ≤ 2). We found a mean adjusted difference in change score of 3.02 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41 to 4.63; p < 0.001) and a significantly larger likeliness of achieving PASS (odds ratio 3.67 (95% CI 1.73 to 8.45); p = 0.001) both in favour of the UKA strategy. Conclusion. UKA and TKA are both good strategies for treating end-stage AMOA. However, when compared as a strategy, UKA achieved larger improvements in OKS, and were more likely to reach the PASS value at one-year follow-up. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(5):441–447

Aims. The primary aim of the study was to compare the knee-specific functional outcome of robotic unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (rUKA) with manual total knee arthroplasty (mTKA) for the management of isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis. Secondary aims were to compare length of hospital stay, general health improvement, and satisfaction between rUKA and mTKA. Methods. A powered (1:3 ratio) cohort study was performed. A total of 30 patients undergoing rUKA were propensity score matched to 90 patients undergoing mTKA for isolated medial compartment arthritis. Patients were matched for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and preoperative function. The Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) were collected preoperatively and six months postoperatively. The Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) and patient satisfaction were collected six months postoperatively. Length of hospital stay was also recorded. Results. There were no significant differences in the preoperative demographics (p ⩾ 0.150) or function (p ⩾ 0.230) between the groups. The six-month OKS was significantly greater in the rUKA group when compared with the mTKA group (difference 7.7, p < 0.001). There was also a greater six-month postoperative EQ-5D (difference 0.148, p = 0.002) and FJS (difference 24.2, p < 0.001) for the rUKA when compared to the mTKA. No patient was dissatisfied in the rUKA group and five (6%) were dissatisfied in the mTKA, but this was not significant (p = 0.210). Length of stay was significantly (p < 0.001) shorter in the rUKA group (median two days, interquartile range (IQR) 1 to 3) compared to the mTKA (median four days, IQR 3 to 5). Conclusion. Patients with isolated medial compartment arthritis had a greater knee-specific functional outcome and generic health with a shorter length of hospital stay after rUKA when compared to mTKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2019;9(1):15–22

Aims

The tibial component of total knee arthroplasty can either be an all-polyethylene (AP) implant or a metal-backed (MB) implant. This study aims to compare the five-year functional outcomes of AP tibial components to MB components in patients aged over 70 years. Secondary aims are to compare quality of life, implant survivorship, and cost-effectiveness.

Aims

To map literature on prognostic factors related to outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA), to identify extensively studied factors and to guide future research into what domains need further exploration.

Aims

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes, mortalities, implant survival rates, and complications of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in patients with or without hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection over at least ten years of follow-up.

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: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B(10 Suppl A):3–8.