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. 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.Aims
Methods
Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (mUKA) is an advised treatment for anteromedial knee osteoarthritis. While long-term survival after mUKA is well described, reported incidences of short-term surgical complications vary and the effect of surgical usage on complications is less established. We aimed to describe the overall occurrence and treatment of surgical complications within 90 days of mUKA, as well as occurrence in high-usage centres compared to low-usage centres. mUKAs performed in eight fast-track centres from February 2010 to June 2018 were included from the Lundbeck Foundation Centre for Fast-track Hip and Knee Replacement Database. All readmissions within 90 days of surgery underwent chart review and readmissions related to the surgical wound or the prosthesis were recorded. Centres were categorized as high-usage centres when using mUKA in ≥ 20% of annual knee arthroplasties. The occurrence of complications between high- and low-usage centres were compared using Fisher’s exact test.Aims
Methods
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. 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.Aims
Methods
