Aims

Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is undertaken in patients with a passively correctable varus deformity. Our hypothesis was that restoration of natural soft tissue tension would result in a comparable lower limb alignment with the contralateral normal lower limb after mobile-bearing medial UKA.

Introduction. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) currently experiences increased popularity. It is usually assumed that UKA shows kinematic features closer to the natural knee than total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Especially in younger patients more natural knee function and faster recovery have helped to increase the popularity of UKA. Another leading reason for the popularity of UKA is the ability to preserve the remaining healthy tissues in the knee, which is not always possible in TKA. Many biomechanical questions remain, however, with respect to this type of replacement. 25% of knees with medial compartment osteoarthritis also have a deficient anterior cruciate ligament [1]. In current clinical practice, medial UKA would be contraindicated in these patients. Our hypothesis is that kinematics after UKA in combination with ACL reconstruction should allow to restore joint function close to the native knee joint. This is clinically relevant, because functional benefits for medial UKA should especially be attractive to the young and active patient. Materials and Methods. Six fresh frozen full leg cadaver specimens were prepared to be mounted in a kinematic rig (Figure 1) with six degrees of freedom for the knee joint. Three motion patterns were applied: passive flexion-extension, open chain extension, and squatting. These motion patterns were performed in four situations for each specimen: with the native knee; after implantation of a medial UKA (Figure 2); next after cutting the ACL and finally after reconstruction of the ACL. During the loaded motions, quadriceps and hamstrings muscle forces were applied. Infrared cameras continuously recorded the trajectories of marker frames rigidly attached to femur, tibia and patella. Prior computer tomography allowed identification of coordinate frames of the bones and calculations of anatomical rotations and translations. Strains in the collateral ligaments were calculated from insertion site distances. Results. Knee kinematics and collateral ligament strains were quite close to the native situation after both UKA and ACL reconstruction for all motor tasks. Nevertheless, some statistically significant differences were detected, which may be relevant clinically and biomechanically. In general, insertion of a UKA led to a knee joint which was somewhat less adducted (Figure 3), with a medial femoral condyle located slightly higher, confirming previously published findings [2]. These effects were slightly reduced both after cutting as well as after reconstructing the ACL. The joint became somewhat less stable in the AP direction after insertion of a UKA and this instability persisted not only after cutting but even after reconstructing the ACL

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is associated with a higher risk of revision compared with total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The outcomes of knee arthroplasty are typically presented as implant survival or incidence of revision after a set number of years, which can be difficult for patients and clinicians to conceptualise. We aimed to calculate the ‘lifetime risk’ of revision for UKA as a more relatable estimate of risk projection over a patient's remaining lifetime, and make comparisons to TKA. All primary UKAS performed from 1999 to 2019 (n=13,481) captured by the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) were included. The lifetime risk of revision was calculated and stratified by age, gender and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status. The lifetime risk of revision for UKA was highest in the youngest patients (46-50 years; 40.4%) and lowest in the oldest patients (86-90 years; 3.7%). Lifetime risk of revision was higher for females (range 4.3%-43.4% cf. males 2.9%-37.4%) and patients with higher ASA status (ASA 3-4 range 8.8%-41.2% cf. ASA 1 1.8%-29.8%), regardless of age. The lifetime risk of UKA was two-fold higher than TKA (ranging from 3.7%-40.4% UKA, 1.6%-22.4% TKA) across all age groups. Increased risk of revision in the younger patients was associated with aseptic loosening in both males and females, and pain in females. Periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) accounted for 4% of all UKA revisions, in contrast to 27% for TKA; risk of PJI was higher for males than females for both procedures. The lifetime risk of revision is a more meaningful measure of arthroplasty outcomes and can aid with patient counselling prior to UKA. Findings from this study show the increased lifetime risk of UKA revision for younger patients, females and those with higher ASA status

Introduction. A key outcome measured by national joint registries are revision events. This informs best practice and identifies poor-performing surgical devices. Although registry data often record reasons for revision arthroplasty, interpretation is limited by lack of standardised definitions of revision reasons and objective assessment of radiologic and laboratory parameters. Our study aim was to compare reasons for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) revision reported to the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) with reasons identified by independent clinical review. Methods. A total of 2,272 patients undergoing primary medial and lateral UKA at four large tertiary hospitals between 2000 and 2017 were included. A total of 158 patients underwent subsequent revision with mean follow-up of 8 years. A systematic review of clinical findings, radiographs and operative data was performed to identify revision cases and to determine the reasons for revision using a standardised protocol. These were compared to reasons reported to the NZJR using Chi-squared and Fisher exact tests. Results. Osteoarthritis progression was the most common reason for revision on systematic clinical review (30%), however this was underreported to the registry (4%, p<0.001). A larger proportion of revisions reported to the registry were for ‘unexplained pain’ (30% of cases vs. 4% on clinical review, p<0.001). A reason for revision was not reported to the registry for 24 (15%) of cases. Discussion and Conclusion. We found significant inaccuracies in registry-reported reasons for revision following UKA. These included over-reporting of ‘unexplained pain’, under-reporting of osteoarthritis progression, and failure to identify a reason for revision. Efforts to improve registry capture of revision reasons for UKA should focus on increasing accuracy in these three areas. This could be addressed through standardised recording methods and tailored revision reason options for UKA for surgeons to select when recording the reasons

Introduction. This study assessed outcomes of total knee joint replacements (TKJR) in patients who had undergone previous periarticular osteotomy compared with unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). Establishing a difference in the results of total knee joint replacements following these operations may be an important consideration in the decision-making and patient counselling around osteotomy versus UKR for the management of single-compartment osteoarthritis. Method. Using data from the New Zealand Joint Registry, we identified 1,895 total knee joint replacements with prior osteotomy and 1,391 with prior UKR. Revision rates and patient-reported outcomes, as measured by the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), between these two groups were compared. Adjusted hazard ratios were also calculated to compare the groups. Results. The revision rate for total knee joint replacement following osteotomy was significantly lower than TKJR following UKR (0.88 per 100 component years versus 1.38 per 100 component years, respectively). Adjusted hazard ratio calculations found that those with TKJR with prior UKR had more than double the risk of requiring revision than those with prior osteotomy. Additionally, there was a statistically significant difference in the mean adjusted OKS scores between the two groups, with improved outcomes in the group with prior osteotomy. Conclusion. Our findings suggest that total knee joint replacement following periarticular osteotomy have a lower risk of revision and improved OKS when compared to those with prior UKR. Previous studies assessing New Zealand Joint Registry have not found a statistically significant difference between the two groups however, these results are no longer in keeping with more contemporary literature. Our study confirms the New Zealand population to be comparable with international studies with TKJR after osteotomy performing significantly better compared with prior UKR

Abstract. Purpose. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is an effective treatment for late knee osteoarthritis (OA). However, its indications remain controversial. Young age (< 60 years) has been associated with worse outcomes. The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to study the effect of age on UKA outcomes. Methods. The primary objective was to compare the UKA revision rate in young patients with that of old patients, using the age thresholds of 60 and 55 years. Secondary objectives were patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and implant design. PubMed, Ovid, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Cochrane library were searched in June 2021. This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021248322). Results. A total of 12 observational studies with 6,448 knees were included. A mean MINORS score of 19 was assigned to the review. The mean age of patients was 64.32 years, with follow-up ranging from 0.2 to 15 years. There was no significant difference in revision rate, incident or PROMs between young and old patients in the analysis for each age threshold. Further sub-analysis adjusting for implant type in mobile- and fixed-bearing prostheses also showed similar results between those above and under 60 and 55 years. Conclusion. Young age was not associated with a higher revision rate or lower functional scores. Thus, this review provides evidence that performing UKA at a younger age (< 60 years) should not be considered suboptimal. However, this finding should be applied in context, as other confounding factors need to be explored

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and high tibial osteotomy (HTO) are well-established operative interventions in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA). However, which of these interventions is more beneficial, to patients with KOA, is not known and remains a topic of much debate. Aims: (i) To determine whether UKA or HTO is more beneficial in the treatment of isolated medial compartment KOA, via an assessment of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). (ii) To investigate the relationship between PROMs and radiographic parameters of knee joint orientation/alignment. This longitudinal observational study assessed a total of 42 patients that had undergone UKA (n=23) or HTO (n=19) to treat isolated medial compartment KOA. The PROMs assessed, pre-operatively and 1-year post-operatively, consisted of the: self-administered comorbidity questionnaire; short form-12; oxford knee score; knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score; and the EQ-5D-5L. The radiographic parameters of knee joint alignment/orientation assessed, pre-operatively and 8-weeks post-operatively, included the: hip-knee-ankle angle; mechanical axis deviation; and the angle of the Mikulicz line. Statistical analysis demonstrated an overall significant (p<0.001), pre-operative to post-operative, improvement in the PROM scores of both groups. There were no significant differences in the post-operative PROM scores of the UKA and HTO group. Correlation analyses revealed that pre-operatively, a more distolaterally angled Mikulicz line was associated with worse knee function (p<0.05) and overall health (p<0.05); a relationship that, until now, has not been investigated nor commented upon within the literature. UKAs and HTOs are both efficacious operations that provide a comparable degree of clinical benefit to patients with isolated medial compartment KOA. To further the scientific/medical community's understanding of the factors that impact upon health-outcomes in KOA, future research should seek to investigate the mechanism underlying the relationship, between Mikulicz line and PROMs, observed within the current study

Purpose. We may consider total knee arthroplasty on one knee and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty on another knee when the patient has different grade osteoarthritis on one knee and opposite knee. Both total knee and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty had been reported as excellent clinical results, but there can be different results and different preference if the same patient undergo operation of simulataneous total knee and unicompartmental knee. We performed total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and pretend to report results of the clinical and radiological results and rationale of the operation. Materials and Methods. From Marth 2007 to February 2014, 23 patients, 46 knees that underwent total knee arthroplasty and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty on knees with different osteoarthritis grade in same person enrolled in this study(Fig. 1). The mean age was 64.4 years old(range:55–75) and mean follow-up period was 25.1 months(range:13–72). Results. The tibiofemoral angle changed from 4.0 of varus to 5.4 of valgus in the total knee arthroplasty, and from 0.5 of valgus to 3.8 of valgus in the unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. The mechanical axis deviation changed from varus 28.35mm to varus 3.68mm in the total knee arthroplasty, and from 16.42 to 8.81 in the unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. The average Hospital for Special Surgery Knee-Rating Scale(HSS) improved from 55.1 preoperatively to 93.4 at last follow-up in the total knee arthroplasty, and from 65.2 to 95.2 in the unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. The average WOMAC Score improved from 61.6 preoperatively to 18.0 at last follow-up in the total knee arthroplasty, and from 55.4 to 16.2 in the unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. For patient preference, 5 patients(22%) preferred the unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, and 6 patients(26%) preferred the total knee arthroplasty, and 12 patients felt no difference between two knees. 20 patients(87%) reported being ‘very satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’ in the total knee arthroplasty, and 18 patients(79%) reported in the unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. We underwent 1 case complication of tibial implant loosening and varus malalignment. So, we converted total knee arthroplasty about 3 months later(Fig. 2). Conclusions. Total knee arthroplasty and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in same person showed satisfactory clinical and radiological results. There was no difference in preference site and postoperative range of motion showed more regainment on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. More complications were demonstrated in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in same person seems to be a good option when the both knee have different osteoarthritis grade

Source of the study: University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand and University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are predictors of knee arthroplasty revision. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is effective for patients with the correct indications, however has higher revision rates than total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Different revision thresholds for the procedures have been postulated. Our aims were to investigate: 1) if PROMs could predict knee arthroplasty revision within two years of the score at six months, five years and ten years follow-up, and 2) if revision ‘thresholds’ differed between TKA and UKA. All TKAs and UKAs captured by the New Zealand Joint Registry between 1999 and 2019 with at least one OKS response at six months (TKA n=27,708, UKA n=8,415), five years (TKA n=11,519, UKA n=3,365) or ten years (TKA n=6,311, UKA n=1,744) were included. were propensity-score matched 2:1 with UKAs for comparison of revision thresholds. Logistic regression indicated that for every one-unit decrease in OKS, the odds of TKA and UKA revision decreased by 10% and 11% at six months, 10% and 12% at five years and 9% and 5% at ten years. Fewer TKA patients with ‘poor’ outcomes (≤25) subsequently underwent revision compared with UKA at six months (5.1% vs. 19.6%, p<0.001), five years (4.3% vs. 12.5%, p<0.001) and ten years (6.4%vs. 15.0%, p=0.02). Compared with TKA, UKA patients were 2.5 times more likely to undergo revision for ‘unknown’ reasons, bearing dislocations and disease progression. The OKS is a strong predictor of subsequent knee arthroplasty revision within two years of the score from early to late term. A lower revision threshold was found with UKA when compared with a matched TKA cohort. Higher revision rates of UKA are associated with both lower clinical thresholds for revision and additional modes of UKA failure

Source of the study: University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has benefits for patients with appropriate indications. However, UKA has a higher risk of revision, particularly for low-usage surgeons. The introduction of robotic-arm assisted systems may allow for improved outcomes but is also associated with a learning curve. We aimed to characterise the learning curve of a robotic-arm assisted system (MAKO) for UKA in terms of operative time, limb alignment, component sizing, and patient outcomes. Operative times, pre- and post-surgical limb alignments, and component sizing were prospectively recorded for consecutive cases of primary medial UKA between 2017 and 2021 (n=152, 5 surgeons). Patient outcomes were captured with the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS-12) and re-operation events up to two years post-UKA. A Cumulative Summation (CUSUM) method was used to estimate learning curves and to distinguish between learning and proficiency phases. Introduction of the system had a learning curve of 11 cases. There was increased operative time of 13 minutes between learning and proficiency phases (learning 98 mins vs. proficiency 85 mins; p<0.001), associated with navigation registration and bone preparation/cutting. A learning curve was also found with polyethylene insert sizing (p=0.03). No difference in patient outcomes between the two phases were detected for patient-reported outcome measures, implant survival (both phases 98%; NS) or re-operation (learning 100% vs. proficiency: 96%; NS). Implant survival and re-operation rates did not differ between low and high usage surgeons (cut-off of 12 UKAs per year). Introduction of the robotic-arm assisted system for UKA led to increased operative times for navigation registration and bone preparation, but no differences were detected in terms of component placement or patient outcomes regardless of usage. The short learning curve regardless of UKA usage indicated that robotic-arm assisted UKA may be particularly useful for low-usage surgeons

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has a higher risk of revision than total knee arthroplasty, particularly for low volume surgeons. The recent introduction of robotic-arm assisted systems has allowed for increased accuracy, however new systems typically have learning curves. The objective of this study was to determine the learning curve of a robotic-arm assisted system for UKA. Methods A total of 152 consecutive robotic-arm assisted primary medial UKA were performed by five surgeons between 2017 and 2021. Operative times, implant positioning, reoperations and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS; Oxford Knee Score, EuroQol-5D, and Forgotten Joint Score) were recorded. There was a learning curve of 11 cases with the system that was associated with increased operative time (13 minutes, p<0.01) and improved insert sizing over time (p=0.03). There was no difference in implant survival (98.2%) between learning and proficiency phases (p = 0.15), and no difference in survivorship between ‘high’ and ‘low’ usage surgeons (p = 0.23) at 36 months. There were no differences in PROMS related to the learning curve. This suggested that the learning curve did not lead to early adverse effects in this patient cohort. The introduction of a robotic-arm assisted UKA system led to learning curves for operative time and implant sizing, but there was no effect on patient outcomes at early follow- up. The short learning curve was independent of UKA usage and indicated that robotic-arm assisted UKA may be particularly useful for low-usage surgeons

Abstract. Aims. The association between body mass index (BMI) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) is well studied, but remains unclear in the literature. We aimed to determine whether morbid obesity (BMI≥40) was associated with increased risk of VTE following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), compared to those of BMI<40. Methods. Between January 2016 and December 2020, our institution performed 4506 TKAs and 449 UKAs. 450 (9.1%) patients had a BMI≥40. CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) for suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) and ultrasound scan for suspected proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) were recorded up to 90 days post-operatively. Results. When comparing those of BMI<40 to those with BMI≥40, there was no difference in incidence of PE (1.0% vs 1.1%, p=0.803) or proximal DVT (0.4% vs 0.2%, p=0.645). There was no difference in number of ultrasound scans ordered (p=0.668), or number of CTPAs ordered for those with a BMI≥40 (p=0.176). The percentage of patients with a confirmed PE or proximal DVT were 24.2% and 3.9% respectively in the BMI<40 group, compared to 20.0% (p=0.804) and 2.3% (p=0.598) in the BMI≥40 group. Conclusion. Morbid obesity was not associated with increased risk of PE or proximal DVT within 90 days of TKA or UKA. Overall, 76.3% of CTPAs and 96.2% of ultrasound scans were negative. Increasing the threshold for VTE investigation would reduce the rate of negative investigations. Establishing more effective risk stratification protocols, to guide investigation, would likely reduce unnecessary imaging

Introduction. There has been renewed interest in the unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with reports of good long term outcomes. Advantages over a more extensive knee replacement include: preservation of bone stock, retention of both cruciate ligaments, preservation of other compartments and better knee kinematics. However, a number of authors have commented on the problem of osseous defects requiring technically difficult revision surgery. Furthermore, a number of recent national register studies have shown inferior survivorship when compared to total knee arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to review the cases of our patients who had a revision total knee arthroplasty for failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. To determine the reason for failure, describe the technical difficulties during revision surgery and record the clinical outcomes of the revision arthroplasties. Methods. Between 2003 and 2009 our institute performed thirty three revisions of a unicompartmental knee arthroplasty on thirty two patients. The time to revision surgery ranged from 2 months to 159 months with a median of 19 months. Details of the operations and complications were taken form case notes. Patient assessment included range of motion, need for walking aids and the functional status of the affected knee in the form of the Oxford knee score questionnaire. Results. The reasons for failure were aseptic loosening of tibial component, persistent pain, dislocated meniscus, mal-alignment and osteoarthritis in another compartment. Of the 33 revision knee arthroplasties 18 required additional intra-operative constructs. 11 knees required a long tibial stem while 1 required a long femoral stem. 10 knees required medial wedge augmentation and bone graft was used in 6. Mean 1 year Oxford knee scores for failed unicompartmental knee replacements was 29 compared to 39 for primary total knee replacements performed at the same institute. Of the revision knee replacements 2 required further revision due to infection and loosening. Conclusion. From the evidence of our group of failed unicompartmental knee replacements, revision surgery is technically difficult and often requires intra-operative constructs. Clinical outcome of revision total knee arthroplasty following failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is not comparable to primary total knee arthroplasty

Introduction: There has been a lack of general agreement on how successful unicompartmental knee arthroplasty has been. The purpose of this study is to report the results of revision total knee arthroplasties performed for failure of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and to determine the factors that led to failure of the unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Materials and method: Between September 1992 and June 1999, 12 knees(10 patients) among 106 primary unicompartmental knee arthroplasties, had revision of a failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. The average age of the patients was 61 years(range, 43 to 73 years). The average follow-up period was 3.6 years. Diagnosis before initial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty included osteoarthritis in eight patients and osteonecrosis in two patients. The medial compartment was involved in all knees. The type of prosthesis used in the 12 knees before revision was one Modular II, seven Microlocs and four Allegrettoes. The initial unicompartmental knee prosthetic components had been in place for an average of 4.3 years(range, 1, 2 to 7.5 years). The clinical findings were assessed using the Hospital for Special Surgery scoring system. Radiographic measurements were done with Bauer’s method. ANOVA test was used for statistical analysis. Results: The cause of revision was wear in six, loosening in five and one deep infection. The implant type used for revison was posterior stabilized type of Press Fit Condylar prosthesis. Eight knees had a bone defect at revision. Bone defects were filled with autogenous bone graft in six knees and metal wedges were used in two knees. At the last follow-up after revision, the average HSS knee score significantly improved from 58 to 83. And the Bauer’s angle was corrected from preoperative varus 6.3 degrees to valgus 6 degrees after revision. Radiographically, three knees had partial radiolucency. There was no complication such as postoperative hematoma, deep or superficial infection and peroneal nerve palsy. Conclusion: Good or excellent results were achieved in all of the knees after revision. Successful salvage of the failed UKA could be achieved by revision arthroplasty. The design of prosthesis, proper selection of patients, and surgical technique were important factors for succes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Abstract. Background. Daycase pathways which aim to discharge patients the same day following Unicompartmental Knee Replacement have been introduced in some centres, though most continue with Standard pathways. While Daycase pathways have cost savings, recovery data comparing pathways is limited. This study aims to compare patient-reported early recovery between Daycase and Standard pathways following UKR. Method. This study was carried out in two centres that originally used the same Standard recovery pathway for UKR. In one centre, the Standard pathway was modified into a Daycase pathway. 26 Daycase-Outpatient, 11 Daycase-Inpatient, and 18 Standard patients were recruited. Patients completed the Oxford Arthroplasty Early Recovery Score (OARS) and SF-36 (Acute) measure between Days 1–42. Results. Standard patients had significantly better Day-1 scores than Daycase patients, but this difference rapidly diminished, and from Day-3 onwards both groups had near-identical scores (OARS Day-1, 59 vs 37, p=0.002, stemming from differences in Pain, Nausea/Feeling-Unwell, Function/Mobility subscores p=0.003,0.014,0.011. OARS Day-3 48 vs 49, p=0.790). Daycase-Outpatients had a higher overall OARS (p=0.002), recovering 1–2 weeks faster than Daycase-Inpatients. OARS subscores demonstrated that Daycase-Outpatients had better Pain, Nausea/Feeling-Unwell, Fatigue/Sleep scores (p=0.020,0.0004,0.019 respectively). SF-36 scores corroborate OARS scores. Conclusion. The Standard cohort had better Day-1 scores than the Daycase cohort, likely due to later mobilisation and stronger inpatient analgesia; these differences diminished by Day-3. Daycase-Outpatients recovered substantially faster than Daycase-Inpatients – likely due to the factors that delayed their discharge. The convergence of scores at 6 weeks demonstrates that both pathways have similar early recovery outcomes

A retrospective study of one hundred and nineteen unicompartmental knee arthroplasties was performed. Outcome measures were the Oxford twelve-item knee questionnaire, the Short Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment (SMFA) and the WOMAC. Regression analysis was performed in order to determine predictors of outcome. After an average follow up period of four years, the mean scores indicated a good to excellent functional outcome. The only predictor of outcome identified was gender, with women obtaining a better functional outcome than men. Other variables that did not influence functional outcome included age, weight, stage of disease, previous HTO and bilateral procedures. The purpose of this study was to determine. the functional outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and. predictors of outcome. Although unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is becoming more widely accepted as a treatment option for degenerative osteoarthritis, there are very few studies in the literature that systematically investigate the predictors of outcome for this procedure. This is a retrospective study of one hundred and nineteen unicompartmental knee arthroplasties perfomed at a university hospital by a single surgeon. The outcome measures used were the Oxford twelve-item knee questionnaire, the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) and the Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC) functional indices. Multiple regression analysis was performed to determine predictors of outcome from chart derived variables. After a mean follow-up of four years the mean Oxford Knee Score was thirty-nine and the mean SMFA and WOMAC functional scores were eight and seven respectively, indicating a good to excellent functional outcome. Regression analysis revealed gender as a predictor of outcome however other variables including age (range 49–84 yrs), weight (range 55–225 kgs), previous ORIF, preoperative varus/valgus (range 0–16 degrees), joint subluxation (range 0–13mm), radiographic stage of disease (Kellgren and Lawrence), as well as previous HTO and bilateral (simultaneous or staged) unicompartmental knee arthroplasty were found to not correlate with functional outcome. Good to excellent functional outcome scores can be achieved with unicompartmental knee replacement. Previous HTO or bilateral procedures as well as weight, pre-operative varus/valgus < sixteen degrees or radiographic stage of disease were not predictive of outcome

There has been significant interest in day-case and rapid discharge pathways for unicompartmental knee replacements (UKR). Pathways to date have shown this to be a safe and feasible option; however, no studies to date have published results of rapid-discharge pathways using the NAVIO robotic system. To date there is no published experience with rapid discharge UKR patients using the NAVIO robotic system. We report an initial experience of 11 patients who have safely been discharged within 24 hours. With the primary goal of investigating factors that led to rapid discharge and a secondary goal of evaluating the safety of doing so. All patients were discharged within 24 hours; there were no post-operative complications and no readmissions to hospital. The mean length of stay was 16.9 hours (SD=7.3), with most patients seen once on average by physiotherapy. Active range of motion at 6 weeks was 0.7o to 130.5 o, with all patients mobilising independently. The average 6-month post-operative Oxford Knee Score was 43.5 out of 48. There were no readmission or complications in any of our patients. This initial feasibility study identified that patients could be safely discharged within 24 hours after UKR using the NAVIO robotic system. With growing uptake of robotic procedures, with longer operative durations than traditional procedures, it is essential to ensure a rapid discharge to reduce healthcare cost whilst ensuring that patients are discharged home in a safe manner

Abstract. Background. The Oxford Domed Lateral (ODL) Unicompartmental Knee Replacement (UKR) has some advantages over other lateral UKRs, but the mobile bearing dislocation rate is high (1–6%). Medial dislocations, with the bearing lodged on the tibial component wall, are most common. Anterior/posterior dislocations are rare. For a dislocation to occur distraction of the joint is required. We have developed and validated a dislocation analysis tool based on a computer model of the ODL with a robotics path-planning algorithm to determine the Vertical Distraction required for a Dislocation (VDD), which is inversely related to the risk of dislocation. Objectives. To modify the ODL design so the risk of medial dislocation decreases to that of an anterior/posterior dislocation. Methods. The components were modified using Solidworks. For each modification the dislocation analysis tool was used to determine the VDD for medial dislocation (with bearing 0–6mm from the tibial wall). This was compared with the original implant to identify the modifications that were most effective at reducing the dislocation risk. These modifications were combined into a final design, which was assessed. Results. Modifying the tibial component plateau, changing the femoral component width and making the bearing wider medially had little effect on VDD. Shifting the femoral sphere centre medially decreased VDD. Shifting the femoral sphere laterally, increasing tibial wall height and increasing bearing width laterally increased VDD. A modified implant with a femoral sphere centre 3mm lateral, wall 2.8mm higher, and bearing 2mm wider laterally, implanted so the bearing is ≤4mm from the tibial wall with a bearing thickness ≥4mm had a minimum VDD for medial dislocation of 5.75mm, which is larger than the minimum VDD for anterior/posterior dislocation of 5.5mm. Conclusions. A modified ODL design should decrease the dislocation rate to an acceptable level, however, further testing in cadavers is required. Declaration of Interest. (a) fully declare any financial or other potential conflict of interest

The treatment of medial knee osteoarthritis (OA) in conjunction with anterior knee laxity is an issue of debate. Current treatment options include knee joint distraction, unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) or high tibial osteotomy with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction or total knee replacement. Bone-conserving options are preferred for younger and active patients with intact lateral and patello-femoral compartment. However, still limited experience exists in the field of combining medial UKR and ACL reconstruction. The aim of this study is to retrospectively evaluate the results of combined fixed-bearing UKR and ACL reconstruction, specifically with regard to patient satisfaction, activity level, and postoperative functional outcomes. The hypothesis was that this represents a safe and viable procedure leading to improved stability and functional outcome in patients affected by isolated unicompartmental OA and concomitant ACL deficiency. Fourteen patients with ACL deficiency and concomitant medial compartment symptomatic osteoarthritis were treated from 2006 to 2010. Twelve of them were followed up for an average time of 7.8 year (range 6–10 years). Assessment included Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Oxford Knee score (OKS), American Knee Society scores (AKSS), WOMAC index of osteoarthritis, Tegner activity level, objective examination including instrumented laxity test with KT-1000 arthrometer and standard X-rays. Wilcoxon test was utilized to compare the pre-operative and follow-up status. Differences with a p value <0.05 were considered statistically significant. KOOS score, OKS, WOMAC index and the AKSS improved significantly at follow-up (p < 0.05). There was no clinical evidence of instability in any of the knees as evaluated with clinical an instrumented laxity testing (p < 0.05). No pathologic radiolucent lines were observed around the components. In one patient a total knee prosthesis was implanted due to the progression of signs of osteoarthritis in the lateral compartment 3 years after primary surgery. UKR combined with ACL reconstruction is a valid therapeutic option for young and active patients with a primary ACL injury who develop secondary OA and confirms subjective and objective clinical improvement up to 8 years after surgery

Multiple reports suggest good outcome results following unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). However, several authors report technically difficult revision surgery secondary to osseous defects. We reviewed clinical outcomes following revision total knee replacement for failed UKR and analysed the reasons for failure and the technical aspects of the revision surgery. Between 2003 and 2009, thirty three revisions from unicompartmental knee replacement to total knee replacement were performed in thirty two patients at a single centre. Demographics, indications for the primary and revision procedures, details of the revised prosthesis including augments and any technical difficulties or complications were noted. Patient assessment included range of motion and the functional status of the affected knee in the form of the Oxford knee score questionnaire. Statistical analysis was performed with the Student t test. All 33 revision knees were available for prospective clinical and radiological follow-up. The minimum duration of follow-up after revision surgery was 1 year (mean 3 years, range 1 – 7 years). The median interval between the original unicompartmental knee replacements to revision surgery was 19 months (range 2 – 159 months). The predominant cause of failure was aseptic loosening (50%). Other reasons included persistent pain (21%), dislocated meniscus (18%), mal-alignment (7%) and progression of symptomatic osteoarthritis in another compartment (4%). 18 of the 33 revision procedures required additional augments. During the revision surgery, 11 knees required a long tibial stem while 1 required a long femoral stem. 10 knees required medial tibial wedge augmentation; bone graft was used in 6 knees while a metal wedge augment was used in 4 to fill significant osseous defects. At the time of follow-up, range of movement averaged 103 degrees (range 70 – 120). The mean one year Oxford knee score, was 29 compared to 39 for primary total knee replacements performed during the same period in a comparable sample group of patients at our institute (p < 0.001). Three patients continued to have pain and two required re-revision; one for infection and one for loosening. Aseptic loosening was the commonest mode of failure. Of the UKRs revised to TKRs, 90% were revised within 5 years. The majority of revisions required additional constructs. Oxford Knee Scores after revision surgery were inferior to those for primary TKR. The role of UKR needs to be more clearly defined