The aim of this study was to determine whether obesity had a detrimental effect on the long-term performance and survival of medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKAs). This study reviewed prospectively collected functional outcome scores and revision rates of all medial UKA patients with recorded BMI performed in Christchurch, New Zealand, from January 2011 to September 2021. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were the primary outcome of this study, with all-cause revision rate analyzed as a secondary outcome. PROMs were taken preoperatively, at six months, one year, five years, and ten years postoperatively. There were 873 patients who had functional scores recorded at five years and 164 patients had scores recorded at ten years. Further sub-group analysis was performed based on the patient’s BMI. Revision data were available through the New Zealand Joint Registry for 2,323 UKAs performed during this time period.Aims
Methods
Aims. Robotic arm-assisted surgery offers accurate and reproducible guidance in component positioning and assessment of soft-tissue tensioning during knee arthroplasty, but the feasibility and early outcomes when using this technology for revision surgery remain unknown. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of robotic arm-assisted revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) versus primary robotic arm-assisted TKA at short-term follow-up. Methods. This prospective study included 16 patients undergoing robotic arm-assisted
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
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
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
Aims. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has higher revision rates than total knee arthroplasty (TKA). As
In the last decade, perioperative advancements have expanded the use of outpatient primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Despite this, there remains limited data on expedited discharge after revision TKA. This study compared 30-day readmissions and reoperations in patients undergoing revision TKA with a hospital stay greater or less than 24 hours. The authors hypothesized that expedited discharge in select patients would not be associated with increased 30-day readmissions and reoperations. Aseptic revision TKAs in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database were reviewed from 2013 to 2020. TKAs were stratified by length of hospital stay (greater or less than 24 hours). Patient demographic details, medical comorbidities, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, operating time, components revised, 30-day readmissions, and reoperations were compared. Multivariate analysis evaluated predictors of discharge prior to 24 hours, 30-day readmission, and reoperation.Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to assess factors associated with the estimated lifetime risk of revision surgery after primary knee arthroplasty (KA). All patients from the Scottish Arthroplasty Project dataset undergoing primary KA during the period 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2019 were included. The cumulative incidence function for revision and death was calculated up to 20 years. Adjusted analyses used cause-specific Cox regression modelling to determine the influence of patient factors. The lifetime risk was calculated as a percentage for patients aged between 45 and 99 years using multiple-decrement life table methodology.Aims
Methods
Aims. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has a higher risk of revision than total knee arthroplasty (TKA), particularly for younger patients. The outcome of knee arthroplasty is typically defined as implant survival or revision incidence after a defined number of years. This can be difficult for patients to conceptualize. We aimed to calculate the ‘lifetime risk’ of
Uncemented mobile bearing designs in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) have seen an increase over the last decade. However, there are a lack of large-scale studies comparing survivorship of these specific designs to commonly used cemented mobile and fixed bearing designs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the survivorship of these designs. A total of 21,610 medial UKAs from 2007 to 2018 were selected from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Multivariate Cox regression analyses were used to compare uncemented mobile bearings with cemented mobile and fixed bearings. Adjustments were made for patient and surgical factors, with their interactions being considered. Reasons and type of revision in the first two years after surgery were assessed.Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to compare ten-year longitudinal healthcare costs and revision rates for patients undergoing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The Humana database was used to compare 2,383 patients undergoing UKA between 2007 and 2009, who were matched 1:1 from a cohort of 63,036 patients undergoing primary TKA based on age, sex, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index. Medical and surgical complications were tracked longitudinally for one year following surgery. Rates of revision surgery and cumulative mean healthcare costs were recorded for this period of time and compared between the cohorts.Aims
Methods
Ideal component sizing may be difficult to achieve in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Anatomical variants, incremental implant size, and a reduced surgical exposure may lead to over- or under-sizing of the components. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of UKA sizing with robotic-assisted techniques versus a conventional surgical technique. Three groups of 93 medial UKAs were assessed. The first group was performed by a conventional technique, the second group with an image-free robotic-assisted system (Image-Free group), and the last group with an image-based robotic arm-assisted system, using a preoperative CT scan (Image-Based group). There were no demographic differences between groups. We compared six parameters on postoperative radiographs to assess UKA sizing. Incorrect sizing was defined by an over- or under-sizing greater than 3 mm.Aims
Methods
Aims. The purpose of this study was to compare the radiological outcomes of manual versus robotic-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Methods. Postoperative radiological outcomes from 86 consecutive robotic-assisted UKAs (RAUKA group) from a single academic centre were retrospectively reviewed and compared to 253 manual UKAs (MUKA group) drawn from a prior study at our institution. Femoral coronal and sagittal angles (FCA, FSA), tibial coronal and sagittal angles (TCA, TSA), and implant overhang were radiologically measured to identify outliers. Results. When assessing the accuracy of RAUKAs, 91.6% of all alignment measurements and 99.2% of all overhang measurements were within the target range. All alignment and overhang targets were simultaneously met in 68.6% of RAUKAs. When comparing radiological outcomes between the RAUKA and MUKA groups, statistically significant differences were identified for combined outliers in FCA (2.3% vs 12.6%; p = 0.006), FSA (17.4% vs 50.2%; p < 0.001), TCA (5.8% vs 41.5%; p < 0.001), and TSA (8.1% vs 18.6%; p = 0.023), as well as anterior (0.0% vs 4.7%; p = 0.042), posterior (1.2% vs 13.4%; p = 0.001), and medial (1.2% vs 14.2%; p < 0.001) overhang outliers. Conclusion. Robotic system navigation decreases alignment and overhang outliers compared to manual UKA. Given the association between component placement errors and
Introduction. The purpose of this study was to compare the radiographic outcomes of manual versus robotic-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Materials & Methods. Postoperative radiographic outcomes from 86 consecutive robotic-assisted UKAs (RAUKA group) from a single academic center were retrospectively reviewed and compared to 253 manual UKAs (MUKA group) drawn from a prior study at our institution. Femoral coronal and sagittal angles (FCA, FSA), tibial coronal and sagittal angles (TCA, TSA), and implant overhang were radiographically measured to identify outliers. Clinical results at 4–6 weeks postoperative were compared to a control cohort of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients from our institution. Results. When assessing the accuracy of RAUKAs, 91.6% of all alignment measurements and 99.2% of all overhang measurements were within the target range. All alignment and overhang targets were simultaneously met in 68.6% of RAUKAs. When comparing radiographic outcomes between the RAUKA and MUKA groups, statistically significant differences were identified for combined outliers in FCA (2.3% vs. 12.6%, p=0.006), FSA (17.4% vs. 50.2%, p<0.001), TCA (5.8% vs. 41.5%, p<0.001), and TSA (8.1% vs. 18.6%, p=0.023), as well as anterior (0.0% vs. 4.7%, p=0.042), posterior (1.2% vs. 13.4%, p=0.001), and medial (1.2% vs. 14.2%, p<0.001) overhang outliers. RAUKA demonstrated statistically significant improvements in pain and outcomes compared to TKA at 4–6 weeks (p<0.05). Conclusions. Robotic navigation decreases alignment and overhang outliers compared to manual UKA and improves clinical results compare to TKA in the early postoperative period. Given the association between component placement errors and
Aims. It has been hypothesized that a unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is more likely to be revised than a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) because conversion surgery to a primary TKA is a less complicated procedure. The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a lower threshold for revising a UKA compared with TKA based on Oxford Knee Scores (OKSs) and range of movement (ROM) at the time of revision. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed 619 aseptic revision cases performed between December 1998 and October 2018. This included 138 UKAs that underwent conversion to TKA and 481 initial TKA revisions. Age, body mass index (BMI), time in situ, OKS, and ROM were available for all patients. Results. There were no differences between the two groups based on demographics or time to revision. The top reasons for aseptic TKA revision were loosening in 212 (44%), instability in 88 (18%), and wear in 69 (14%).
Converting UKA to TKA can be difficult, and specialised techniques are needed. Issues include bone loss, joint line approximation, sizing, and rotation. Determining the complexity of conversion preoperatively helps predict the need for augmentation, grafting, stems, or constraint. In a 2009 study from our center, 50 UKA revised to TKA (1997–2007) were reviewed: 9 modular fixed-bearing, 4 metal-backed nonmodular fixed-bearing, 8 resurfacing onlay, 10 all-polyethylene step-cut, and 19 mobile bearing designs; 5 knees failed due to infection, 5 due to wear and/or instability, 10 for pain or progression of arthritis, 8 for tibial fracture or severe subsidence, and 22 due to loosening of either one or both components. Insert thickness was no different between implants or failure modes. Stemmed component use was most frequent with nonmodular components (50%), all-polyethylene step-cut implants (44%), and modular fixed-bearing implants (33%; P=0.40). Stem use was highest in tibial fracture (86%; P=0.002). Augment use was highest among all-polyethylene step-cut implants (all-polyethylene, 56%; metal-backed, 50%; modular fixed-bearing, 33%; P=0.01). Augmentation use was highest in fracture (86%) and infection (67%), with a significant difference noted between failure modes (P=0.003). Failure of nonmodular all-polyethylene step-cut devices was more complex than resurfacing or mobile bearing. Reestablishing the joint line, ligamentous balance, and durable fixation are critical to assuring a primary outcome. In a 2013 multicenter study of 3 institutions including ours, a total of 175 revisions of medial UKA in 168 patients (average age: 66 years) performed from 1995 to 2009 with a minimum 2-year clinical follow-up were reviewed. The average time from UKA to revision TKA was 71.5 months (2–262). The four most common reasons for failure were femoral or tibial loosening (55%), progressive arthritis of the lateral or patellofemoral joints (34%), polyethylene failure (4%) and infection (3%). Mean follow-up after revision was 75 months. Nine of 175 knees (4.5%) were subsequently revised at an average of 48 months (6–123). The average Knee Society pain and function score increased to 75 and 66, respectively. In the present series, the re-revision rate after revision TKA from UKA was 4.5% at an average of 75 months. In a current study from our center, 184 patients (193 UKA) underwent revision procedures (1996–2015) with minimum 2-year follow-up. Mean age was 63.5 (37–84) years, body mass index was 32.3 (19–57) kg/m. 2. , and interval after UKA was 4.8 (0–35) years. Most prevalent indications for revision were aseptic loosening (42%), arthritic progression (20%) and tibial collapse (14%). At 6.1 years mean follow-up (2–20), 8 knees (4.1%) have required re-revision involving any part, which is similar to what we recently reported at 5.5 years in a group of patients who underwent primary TKA (6 of 189; 3.2%), and much lower than what we observed at 6.0 years in a recent report of patients who underwent aseptic revision TKA (35 of 278; 12.6%). In the study group, Knee Society clinical and function scores improved from 50.8 and 52.1 preoperatively to 83.4 and 67.6 at most recent evaluation, respectively. Re-revisions were for aseptic loosening (3), instability (2), arthrofibrosis (2), and infection (1). Compared to published individual institution and national registry data, re-revision rates of failed UKA are equivalent to revision rates of primary TKA and substantially better than re-revision rates of revision TKA. These data should be used to counsel patients undergoing
Aims. Little is known about the relative outcomes of revision of unicompartmental
knee arthroplasty (UKA) and high tibial osteotomy (HTO) to total
knee arthroplasty (TKA). The aim of this study is to compare the
outcomes of revision surgery for the two procedures in terms of
complications, re-revision and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)
at a minimum of two years follow-up. Patients and Methods. This study was a retrospective review of data from an institutional
arthroplasty registry for cases performed between 2001 and 2014.
A total of 292 patients were identified, of which 217 had a revision
of HTO to TKA, and 75 had
Converting UKA to TKA can be difficult, and specialised techniques are needed. Issues include bone loss, joint line approximation, sizing, and rotation. Determining the complexity of conversion pre-operatively helps predict the need for augmentation, grafting, stems, or constraint. In a 2009 study from our center, 50 UKA revised to TKA (1997–2007) were reviewed: 9 implants (18%) were modular fixed-bearing, 4 (8%) were metal-backed nonmodular fixed-bearing, 8 (16%) were resurfacing onlay, 10 (20%) were all-polyethylene step-cut, and 19 (38%) were mobile bearing designs; 5 knees (10%) failed due to infection, 5 (10%) due to wear and/or instability, 10 (20%) for pain or progression of arthritis, 8 (16%) for tibial fracture or severe subsidence, and 22 (44%) due to loosening of either one or both components. Insert thickness was no different between implants (P=0.23) or failure modes (P=0.27). Stemmed component use was most frequent with nonmodular components (50%), all-polyethylene step-cut implants (44%), and modular fixed-bearing implants (33%; P=0.40). Stem use was highest in tibial fracture (86%; P=0.002). Augment use was highest among all-polyethylene step-cut implants (all-polyethylene, 56%; metal-backed, 50%; modular fixed-bearing, 33%; P=0.01). Augmentation use was highest in fracture (86%) and infection (67%), with a significant difference noted between failure modes (P=0.003). Failure of nonmodular all-polyethylene step-cut devices was more complex than resurfacing or mobile bearing. Failure mode was predictive of complexity. Reestablishing the joint line, ligamentous balance, and durable fixation are critical to assuring a primary outcome. In a 2013 multicenter study of 3 institutions including ours, a total of 175 revisions of medial UKA in 168 patients (81 males, 87 females; average age of 66 years) performed from 1995 to 2009 with a minimum of 2-year clinical follow-up were reviewed. The average time from UKA to revision TKA was 71.5 months (range: 2 months to 262 months). The four most common reasons for failure of the UKA were femoral or tibial loosening (55%), progressive arthritis of the lateral or patellofemoral joints (34%), polyethylene failure (4%) and infection (3%). Mean follow-up after revision was 75 months. Nine of 175 knees (4.5%) were subsequently revised at an average of 48 months (range 6 months to 123 months.) The rate of revision was 1.23 revisions per 100 observed component years. The average Knee Society pain and function score increased to 75 and 66, respectively. In the present series, the re-revision rate after revision TKA from UKA was 4.5 % at an average of 75 months or 1.2 revisions per 100 observed component years. In a current study from our center, 174 patients (180 UKA) underwent revision procedures (1996–2017). Most prevalent indications for revision were aseptic loosening (45%) arthritic progression (17%) and tibial collapse (13%). At 4 years mean follow-up, 5 knees (2.8%) have required re-revision involving any part, which is similar to what we recently reported at 5.5 years in a group of patients who underwent primary TKA (6 of 189; 3.2%), and much lower than what we observed at 6.0 years in a recent report of patients who underwent aseptic revision TKA (35 of 278; 12.6%). Compared to published individual institution and national registry data, re-revision of a failed UKA is equivalent to revision rates of primary TKA and substantially better than re-revision rates of revision TKA. These data should be used to counsel patients undergoing
Our aim was to examine the clinical and radiographic outcomes
in 257 consecutive Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (OUKAs)
(238 patients), five years post-operatively. A retrospective evaluation was undertaken of patients treated
between April 2008 and October 2010 in a regional centre by two
non-designing surgeons with no previous experience of UKAs. The
Oxford Knee Scores (OKSs) were recorded and fluoroscopically aligned
radiographs were assessed post-operatively at one and five years.Aims
Patients and Methods
As with any revision knee arthroplasty, the first rule of revision is to ensure that the reason for failure has been identified, as revision for pain alone is associated with poor results. This is particularly important when considering revision of a UKA, as surgeons may have a lower threshold for revision than following TKA given the perception that the revision is “easy” and that the pain is “probably from the unresurfaced compartments”. In a multi-center study, we found that many patients undergoing revision of a failed UKA do not have an appropriate evaluation for infection. Evaluation should include a screening ESR and CRP and if abnormal, an aspiration of the knee joint for synovial fluid WBC count, differential and culture. To revise a UKA to a TKA, we perform the revision as we would a primary TKA, ignoring the implanted femoral component and using it to assist with reference of femoral component rotation and for the distal femoral cut; the component is not removed until it must for the final preparation. After finishing the femoral component cuts, the tibia is completely exposed prior to carefully removing the tibial component and re-cutting the tibia. In our experience of 45 consecutive both component
