Partial knee arthroplasty (PKA), either medial
or lateral unicompartmental knee artroplasty (UKA) or patellofemoral arthroplasty
(PFA) are a good option in suitable patients and have the advantages
of reduced operative trauma, preservation of both cruciate ligaments
and bone stock, and restoration of normal kinematics within the
knee joint. However, questions remain concerning long-term survival.
The goal of this review article was to present the long-term results
of medial and
There has been a recent resurgence in interest in combined partial knee arthroplasty (PKA) as an alternative to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The varied terminology used to describe these procedures leads to confusion and ambiguity in communication between surgeons, allied health professionals, and patients. A standardized classification system is required for patient safety, accurate clinical record-keeping, clear communication, correct coding for appropriate remuneration, and joint registry data collection. An advanced PubMed search was conducted, using medical subject headings (MeSH) to identify terms and abbreviations used to describe knee arthroplasty procedures. The search related to TKA, unicompartmental (UKA), patellofemoral (PFA), and combined PKA procedures. Surveys were conducted of orthopaedic surgeons, trainees, and biomechanical engineers, who were asked which of the descriptive terms and abbreviations identified from the literature search they found most intuitive and appropriate to describe each procedure. The results were used to determine a popular consensus.Aims
Materials and Methods
Approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2004, the Phase
III Oxford Medial Partial Knee is used to treat anteromedial osteoarthritis
(AMOA) in patients with an intact anterior cruciate ligament. This
unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is relatively new in the
United States, and therefore long-term American results are lacking. This is a single surgeon, retrospective study based on prospectively
collected data, analysing a consecutive series of primary UKAs using
the Phase III mobile-bearing Oxford Knee and Phase III instrumentation. Between July 2004 and December 2006, the senior author (RHE)
carried out a medial UKA in 173 patients (213 knees) for anteromedial
osteoarthritis or avascular necrosis (AVN). A total of 95 patients were men and 78 were women. Their mean
age at surgery was 67 years (38 to 89) and mean body mass index
29.87 kg/m2 (17 to 62). The mean follow-up was ten years (4 to 11).Aims
Patients and Methods
The aim of this to study was to compare the previously unreported
long-term survival outcome of the Oxford medial unicompartmental
knee arthroplasty (UKA) performed by trainee surgeons and consultants. We therefore identified a previously unreported cohort of 1084
knees in 947 patients who had a UKA inserted for anteromedial knee
arthritis by consultants and surgeons in training, at a tertiary
arthroplasty centre and performed survival analysis on the group
with revision as the endpoint.Aims
Patients and Methods
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:
