Objectives

The primary stability of the cementless Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacement (OUKR) relies on interference fit (or press fit). Insufficient interference may cause implant loosening, whilst excessive interference could cause bone damage and fracture.

The aim of this study was to identify the optimal interference fit by measuring the force required to seat the tibial component of the cementless OUKR (push-in force) and the force required to remove the component (pull-out force).

Aims

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.

The global economy has been facing a financial crisis. Healthcare costs are spiraling, and there is a projected £30 billion health funding gap by 2020 in the UK.¹ This has prompted a drive for efficiency in healthcare provision in the UK, and in 2012, the Health and Social Care Act was introduced, heralding a fundamental change to the structure of the National Health Service, especially in the way that healthcare is funded in England.²

What is happening in the UK is a reflection of a global problem. Rationing of healthcare is a topic of much discussion; as unless spending is capped, providing healthcare will become unsustainable. Who decides how money is spent, and which services should be rationed?

In this article we aim to discuss the impact that rationing may have on orthopaedic surgery, and we will discuss our own experiences of attempts to ration local services.³ We also seek to inform and educate the general orthopaedic community on this topic.

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.

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: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:345–9.