Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the functional results and ease of performing revision surgery after a primary unicompartmental arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty. Method: 114 revision TKRs had data collected prospectively as part of our unit’s Knee Database. 45 were revisions of UKR’s and 79 revisions of TKR’s. This data included Bristol Knee Scores (BKS), reason for revision, use of implant augments and bone graft. Measurements were also made of the ability to restore joint-line after revision. Results: In both groups there was a significant improvement in BKS post-operatively. In the UKR group the commonest reason for revision was progression of disease, while in the TKR group it was aseptic loosening. Bone graft was required in significantly fewer UKR cases (20% vs 40%, P< 0.05). Distal femoral augments were used in 45% of the TKR revisions but in none of the revisions from UKR. The joint line was elevated in a significantly higher proportion of revision from TKR cases versus revision from UKR cases (P< 0.001). Revisions from UKR had higher Total BKS and Functional BKS score than revisions from TKR. Conclusions: Revision TKR after a primary UKR requires less bone graft, fewer augments, restores the joint line more frequently and gives improved functional results over revisions after primary TKR

Introduction. There has been a recent major increase in the use of unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) but few studies exist comparing its long term efficiency with total knee replacement (TKR). Method. Ethical approval was obtained. Between 1989 and 1992 a randomised prospective study was undertaken in which 102 cases adjudged suitable for UKR were allocated to receive either a St Georg Sled UKR or a Kinematic Modular TKR. Both cohorts had a median age of 68 and a similar sex distribution and preoperative knee score. Regular follow up has been maintained. As reported the early results favoured UKR. All cases have now been assessed after a minimum of 10 years using modified WOMAC, Oxford and Bristol Knee Scores (BKS) as well as radiographs. Results. 28 cases had died with their knees known to be intact, 2 cases were untraceable. 33 knees in each group were reviewed. 3 in each group had been revised, no impending failures were identified on the radiographs. At 10 years the UKR group had better Oxford and WOMAC scores as well as significantly more excellent results (19:14) and fewer fair and poor results on the BKS. Both groups averaged over 105′ of flexion but 61% of the UKR and only 15% of the TKR group had 120′ or more of flexion. Conclusion. The faster rehabilitation and better early results with UKR are maintained for 10 years with few failures occurring. The average BKS of the UKR group only fell from 91 to 88 between 5 and 10 years suggesting minimal evidence of functional deterioration in either the prosthesis or the remainder of the joint

A cementless version of the Phase 3 Oxford UKR has been used in our unit since mid 2005. We report on our early experience with this implant, reviewing the National Joint Register (NJR) data on UKR in general and Oxford specifically, with respect to six month Oxford Knee Scores (OKS) and revision rates. A single surgeon review of 170 cementless and 132 cemented cases revealed a mean 6 month OKS of 41.5 and revision rate per 100 component years of 0 for the cementless group, and mean 6 month OKS of 40.0 and revision rate of 1.05 for the cemented group. The equivalent results from the NJR for UKR are 38.75 and 1.44. Radiological review of the 170 cementless cases showed no concerns regarding subsidence and encouraging features with respect to ingrowth. There were no radiolucent lines at one year. The cementless components appear to be strongly osteophilic. The NZ experience with the Cementless Oxford is single centre, comprising a small number of high volume surgeons, and the OKS and revision rates are presented. To date, there have been 346 cases with a revision rate per 100 component years of 0.30. In summary, single surgeon and national early experience of the Cementless Oxford UKR from clinical and radiological evidence is encouraging

Introduction. Cementless unicondylar knee implants are intended to offer surgeons the potential of a faster and less invasive surgery experience in comparison to cemented procedures. However, initial 8 week fixation with micromotion less than 150µm is crucial to their survivorship1 to avoid loosening2. Methods. Test methods by Davignon et al3 for micromotion were used to assess fixation of the MAKO UKR Tritanium (MAKO) (Stryker, NJ) and the Oxford Cementless UKR (Biomet, IN). Data was analyzed to determine the activities of daily living (ADL) that generate the highest forces and displacements4, 5. Stair ascent with 3.2BW compressive posterior tibial load was identified to be an ADL which may cause the most micromotion5. Based on previous studies6, 10,000 cycles was set as the run-time. The AP and IE profiles were scaled back to 60% for the Oxford samples to prevent the congruent insert from dislocating. A four-axis test machine (MTS, MN) was used. The largest size UKRs were prepared per manufacturer's surgical technique. Baseplates were inserted into Sawbones (Pacific Research, WA) blocks1. Femoral components were cemented to arbors. The medial compartment was tested, and the lateral implants were attached to balance the loads. Five tests were conducted for each implant with a new Sawbones and insert for each test per the test method3. The ARAMIS System (GOM, Germany) was used to measure relative motion between the baseplate and the Sawbones at three anteromedial locations (Fig. 1). Peak-Peak (P-P) micromotion was calculated in the compressive and A/P directions. FEA studies replicating the most extreme static loading positions for MAKO micromotion were conducted to compare with the physical test results using ANSYS14.5 (ANSYS, PA). Results. MAKO had a maximum axial motion of 36µm (SD=5.28) at gage 2. Oxford had an average gage 1 axial and A/P motion of 109µm (SD=31.77) and 44mm (SD=28.62) respectively (Fig. 2A). FEA correlated well with the MAKO results (Fig. 2B). Discussion. Oxford has been shown to have microseparation in lab testing conditions and the studies by Liddle et al7 under the same stair ascent activity. However, based on our results, MAKO and Oxford are both expected to allow interdigitation for long-term fixation. The Sawbones model does not allow plastic deformation in axial compression and subsequent stabilization, which could allow Oxford to achieve the fixation and clinical success shown in outcome studies. A/P prep for Oxford allows for 3mm gap between the keel and the bone which may explain the variability in the X direction. Distal flatness of the Oxford varied by 0.5mm as shown on Figure 3. The flatness of the boundary of the implant may explain the elevated micromotion observed for Oxford implant. Future studies will concentrate on FEA of manufactured Oxford components to take into account the geometric discrepancies from a perfectly flat model. Davignon et al3 and this study show that the MAKO is expected to achieve long-term fixation in the initial fixation stages similar to the clinically successful Oxford cementless UKR

NavioPFS™ unicondylar knee replacement (UKR) system combines CT-free planning and navigation with robotically assisted bone preparation. In the planning procedure, all relevant anatomic information is collected under navigation, either directly with the point probe or by kinematic manipulation. In addition to key anatomic landmarks and the maps of the articulating surfaces of the femur and tibia, kinematic assessment of the joint laxity is performed. Relative positions of femur and tibia are collected through the flexion/extension range, with the pressure applied to fully stretch the collateral ligament on the operative side. The planning procedure involves three stages: (1) the implant sizing and initial placement,(2) balancing of the gap on the operative side and (3) evaluating the contact points for the recorded flexion data and the planned placement of implants. In the gap balancing stage, the implants are repositioned until they allow for a positive gap, preferably uniform, throughout the entire range of flexion. UKR was planned and prepared on six cadaver knees with the help of NavioPFS system. All knees were normal without any signs of osteoarthritis. Two surgeons have performed medial UKR (4+2), and the bones were prepared using the NavioPFS handheld robotic tool. Postoperatively, we have re-used the data collected during the planning procedure to compare the kinematic (gap balancing) performance of the used implant with three different commercial implant designs. All implants were placed in the orientation recommended by the respective manufacturer, sized to best fit the original bone geometry, and repositioned optimally balance the gap curve through the entire flexion range, without any negative gaps (overlaps). Since these were nonarthritic cadaver knees, the intent was to restore the original preoperative varus/valgus in neutral (zero) flexion. The three implant designs demonstrated variable degree of capability to uniformly balance the knee gap over the entire range of flexion. The first implant (A) required a gap larger than 2 mm in one case out of six, the second (B) was capable of producing the positive gap curve under 2mm of gap in all six cases, and the third (C) required a gap larger than 2 mm in 3 (50%) of cases. All three designs exhibit the reduced gap space in mid (30°–90°) flexion. Despite the best attempts, the artificial implants do not fully replicate the healthy knee kinematics. This is manifested by increased tightness in the mid flexion. In order to balance the gap in mid flexion, additional laxity has to be allowed in full flexion, extension, or both. NavioPFS allows for patient specific planning that takes into account this information, only available intraoperatively. This kind of evaluation on a patient specific basis is a very important planning tool and it allows the insight on the implant performance in mid flexion, typically not available using conventional planning techniques. It can also help in improving kinematic performance of future implant designs

Purpose. Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is an established, bone preserving surgical treatment option for medial compartment osteoarthritis (OA). Early revision rates appear consistently higher than those of total knee replacement (TKR) in many case series and consistently in national registry data. Failure with progression of OA in the lateral compartment has been attributed, in part, to surgical technical errors. In this study we used navigation assisted surgery to investigate the effects of improper sizing of the mobile bearing and malrotation of the tibial component on alignment and lateral compartment loading. Method. A total of eight fresh frozen cadaveric lower limbs were used in the study. After thawing overnight, a Brainlab navigation system with an Oxford (Biomet, Inc) medial UKR module was used to capture the native knee anatomy and alignment using a digitizing probe. Following registration, the case was performed with navigation verified neutral cuts and an ideal insert size was selected to serve as a baseline. The bearing thickness was subsequently increased by 2 mm increments to simulate progressive medial joint overstuffing. Excessive tibial internal rotation of 12 was also simulated at each of the intervals. Knee alignment in varus or valgus was recorded in real time for each surgical scenario with the knee in full extension and at 20 of flexion. Lateral compartment peak pressure was measured using a Tekscan pressure map. Results. Incremental overstuffing of the medial compartment with inserts of increasing thickness resulted in a progressive shift to more valgus knee alignment. Internally rotated sagittal cuts at 12 resulted in a further valgus shift for a given insert size. The valgus shift was detectable at full extension however it was more pronounced at 20 of flexion. Conclusion. The intentional technical errors of overstuffing and malrotation in UKR produced coronal valgus knee alignment and a greater load shift to the lateral compartment. These errors can be construed to contribute to the higher early failure rates associated with UKR when compared to TKR. Special care should be taken to ensure a neutral sagittal tibia cut and appropriate bearing selection. The Intra operative verification of knee alignment should be conducted at 20 of flexion where such errors will be easier for the surgeon to detect and rectify

Purpose. Patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) deficiency and symptomatic medial compartment osteoarthritis (OA) present a challenge in management. These are often younger than typical primary OA patients and aspire to remain athletically active beyond simple ADLs. Combined ACL reconstruction and valgus tibial osteotomy (ACLHTO) is a well documented surgical option for patients deemed wither too young or too active for total knee arthroplasty. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is an established surgical treatment for symptomatic medial osteoarthritis of the knee refractory to conservative management. A commonly cited contraindications is symptomatic ACL deficiency because of previous reports detailing premature failure through loosening of the tibial component. Improved results and endoscopic ACL reconstructive procedures have led to an enticing concept of combining ACL reconstruction with medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (ACLUKR) for those ACL-deficient medial osteoarthritic (OA) knees. We sought to compare the outcomes in 2 cohorts of patients who underwent either ACLHTO or ACLUKR for this clinical problem. Method. Patients presenting with symptomatic bone on bone medial compartment OA and concomitant ACL deficiency (clinical or asymptomatic) were evaluated for surgery after exhausting non operative management. Patients who were under 40 or had plans to return to high impact loading sports and/or who had more moderate OA were offered combined ACL – medial opening wedge tibia osteotomy as a surgical procedure of choice. Patients were considered for combined ACL Oxford replacement if they were primarily seeking pain relief and were not engaged or aspiring to return to high impact or pivoting sports. All cases but one were concurrent ACL with either HTO or UKR with autogenous hamstring grafts used in all but 2 cases. Results. Thirty of 34 consecutive cases were available for follow-up for a rate of 88%. The median ages for 14 cases of ACLUKR was 51 (range 43 60) whereas 16 patients with ACLHTO had median age 43.4 (range 32 −59). Median FU was 4.65 yrs with minimum 2 year follow up (range 2–8.3). Three of the cases were revision ACL cases all from previous Gore-Tex reconstructions. All but the first patient had concomitant ACL and Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement at 1 surgical sitting and are the subject of this report. The first patient had an autogenous patella bone tendon bone graft performed 6 months prior to the UKA. There were similar change scores for patients in both groups. For ACLUKR, WOMAC pain improvements from 48.1 10.2 SD preoperatively to 79.0 17 SD postop. For ACLHTO, WOMAC improvements from 55.1 13.2 SD preoperatively to 85.0 17 SD postop. To date there have been no cases of infection or bearing dislocation in the ACLUKR group. One patient in the ACLHTO group was revised to TKR for ongoing pain and postoperative flexion contracture. Patient activities ranged from ambulation to vigorous hiking, tennis, and downhill skiing in the UKR group whereas a few in the ACLHTO group were also running mid distances. Overall satisfaction was similar in both groups. Conclusion. ACL reconstruction can safely be combined with medial UKR. The procedure has been used in younger patients with a view toward bone preservation while anticipating need for future revision. Both cohorts showed similar improvements and can be considered. The choice should be geared toward patient athletic demand. While short term results are encouraging though longer term data are necessary to thoroughly evaluate the role of this procedure in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis and ACL deficiency

Introduction. Unicompartmental Knee Replacement (UKR) is an appealing alternative to Total Knee Replacement (TKR) when the patient has isolated compartment osteoarthritis (OA). A common observation post-operatively is radiolucency between the tibial tray wall and the bone. In addition, some patients complain of persistent pain following implantation with a UKR; this may be related to elevated bone strains in the tibia. The aim of this study was to investigate the mechanical environment of the tibia bone adjacent to the tray wall, following UKR, to determine whether this region of bone resorbs, and how altering the mechanical environment affects tibia strains. Materials and methods. A finite element (FE) model of a cadaver tibia implanted with an Oxford UKR was used in this study, based on a validated model. A single static load, measured in-vivo during a step-up activity was used. There was a 1 mm layer of cement surrounding the keel in the cemented UKR, and the cement filled the cement pocket. In accordance with the operating procedure, no cement was used between the tray wall and bone. For the cementless UKR a layer of titanium filled the cement pocket. An intact tibia was used to compare to the cemented and cementless UKR implanted tibiae. The tibia was sectioned by the tray wall, defining the radiolucency zone (parallel to the vertical tray wall, 2 mm wide with a volume of 782.5 mm. 3. ), corresponding to the region on screened x-rays where radiolucencies are observed. Contact mechanics algorithms were used between all contacting surfaces; bonded contact was also introduced between the tray wall and adjacent bone, simulating a mechanical tie between them. Strain energy density (SED), was compared between the intact and implanted tibia for the radiolucency zone. Equivalent strains were compared on the proximal tibia between the intact and implanted tibia models. Forty patients (20 cemented, 20 cementless) who had undergone UKR were randomly selected from a database, and assessed for radiolucency. Results. The SED in the radiolucency zone was 80% lower in the cemented and cementless tibia, compared to the intact tibia, without a mechanical tie between the tibial tray wall and adjacent bone. When a mechanical tie was introduced the SED in the radiolucency zone was 35% higher in the cemented and cementless tibia, compared to the intact tibia. The strain on the proximal tibia was reduced by 20% when a mechanical tie was used between the tray wall and adjacent bone. Radiolucency at the tray wall was observed in all forty radiographs examined. Discussion. This work has presented a static snapshot of the load being carried through the proximal tibia following implantation with an Oxford UKR. It has been shown that by introducing a mechanical tie between the tibial tray wall and the adjacent bone, the SED in the region observed to have radiolucency is increased; this has the potential of reducing the likelihood of a radiolucency occurring in that region. Moreover, the strain observed in the proximal tibia was reduced when a mechanical tie was introduced, which may reduce the incidence of pain following implantation with a UKR. It is recommended that integration between the bone and the tray wall is important for UKR

Introduction: The Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) use in the lateral compartment has been associated with a reduced flexion range and increased medial compartment pain than seen with its medial counterpart due to, in part, the inadequacy of a flat tibial tray replacing the domed anatomy of the lateral tibia. A new design incorporating a domed tibial component and a biconcave meniscal bearing has been developed to overcome these problems. This study reports a clinical comparison of new and old establishing whether this modified implant has maintained the established normal kinematic profile of the Oxford UKR. Method: Patients undergoing lateral UKR for OA were recruited for the study. Fifty one patients who underwent UKR with the domed design were compared to 60 patients who had lateral UKR with a flat inferior bearing surface. Kinematic evaluation was performed on 3 equal subgroups (n = 20); Group 1-Normal volunteer knees, Group 2-Flat Oxford Lateral UKR’s and Group 3-Domed Oxford Lateral UKR’s. The sagittal plane kinematics of each knee was assessed using videofluoroscopic analysis whilst performing a step up and deep knee bend activity. The fluoroscopic images were recorded digitally, corrected for distortion using a global correction method and analysed using specially developed software to identify the anatomical landmarks needed to determine the Patella Tendon Angle (PTA) (the angle the patella tendon and the tibial axis). Knee kinematics were assessed by analysing the movement of the femur relative to the tibia using the PTA. Results: PTA/KFA values, for both devices, from extension to flexion did not show any significant difference in PTA values in comparison to the normals as measured by a 3-way ANOVA. The Domed implant achieved higher maximal active flexion during the lunge exercise than those with a flat implant. Only 33% of the flat UKR’s achieved KFA of 130° or more under load whilst performing a lunge, compared with 75% of domed UKR’s and 90% of normal knees. No flat UKR achieved a KFA of 140° or more, yet 50% of all domed UKR’s did, as did 60% of all normal knees. Conclusions: There was no significant difference in sagittal plane kinematics of the domed and flat Oxford UKR’s. Both designs had favorable kinematic profiles closely resembling that of the normal knee, suggesting normal function of the cruciate mechanism. The domed knees had a greater range of motion under load compared to the flats, approaching levels seen with the normal knee, suggesting that limited flexion for the flat plateau results from over tightening in high flexion and that this is corrected with the domed plateau. Problems with the second generation of lateral Oxford UKA have been rectified by a new bi-concave bearing without losing bearing stability and normal kinematics

The outcome of high tibial osteotomy (HTO) deteriorates with time, and additional procedures may be required. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes between unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) and total knee replacement (TKR) after HTO as well as after primary UKR. A total of 63 patients (63 knees) were studied retrospectively and divided into three groups: UKR after HTO (group A; n = 22), TKR after HTO (group B; n = 18) and primary UKR (group C; n = 22). The Oxford knee score (OKS), Knee Society score (KSS), hip–knee–ankle angles, mechanical axis and patellar height were evaluated pre- and post-operatively. At a mean of 64 months (19 to 180) post-operatively the mean OKS was 43.8 (33 to 49), 43.3 (30 to 48) and 42.5 (29 to 48) for groups A, B and C, respectively (p = 0.73). The mean KSS knee score was 88.8 (54 to 100), 88.11 (51 to 100) and 85.3 (45 to 100) for groups A, B and C, respectively (p = 0.65), and the mean KSS function score was 85.0 (50 to 100) in group A, 85.8 (20 to 100) in group B and 79.3 (50 to 100) in group C (p = 0.48). Radiologically the results were comparable for all groups except for patellar height, with a higher incidence of patella infra following a previous HTO (p = 0.02). Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1348–53

The significance of weight in the indications for unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is unclear. Our hypothesis was that weight does not affect the long-term rate of survival of UKRs. We undertook a retrospective study of 212 UKRs at a mean follow-up of 12 years (7 to 22). The patients were distributed according to body mass index (BMI; < vs ≥ 30 kg/m. 2. ) and weight (< vs ≥ 82 kg). Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed and ten-year survival rates were compared between the sub-groups. Multimodal regression analysis determined the impact of the various theoretical contraindications on the long-term rate of survival of UKR. The ten-year rates of survival were similar in the two weight subgroups (≥ 82 kg: 93.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 66.5 to 96.3); < 82 kg: 92.5% (95% CI 82.5 to 94.1)) and also in the two BMI subgroups (≥ 30 kg/m. 2. : 92% (95% CI 82.5 to 95.3); < 30 kg/m. 2. : 94% (95% CI 78.4 to 95.9)). Multimodal regression analysis revealed that weight plays a part in reducing the risk of revision with a relative risk of 0.387, although this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.662). The results relating weight and BMI to the clinical outcome were not statistically significant. Thus, this study confirms that weight does not influence the long-term rate of survival of UKR. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1064–8

Introduction. The authors performed a short term prospective study of unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) associated to patella-femoral arthroplasty (PFA) for the treatment of bicompartmental symptomatic knee arthritis. At the latest follow-up all the implants were matched to a similar computer assisted Total Knee Replacements (CAS-TKR) group implanted for the same indications. Hypothesis of the study was that this bicompartimental implants could achieve comparable outcomes to TKR with a more conservative surgery and a higher joint function. Materials and Methods. 19 cases of anteriomedial (12) or anterolateral (7) arthritis in 19 stable knees were prospectively involved in the study. All the knees underwent to a selective reconstruction using simultaneously both UKR and PFR using the same surgical technique. All bicompartmental implants were performed by the same surgeon. Surgical time, hospital staying and all intra and post operative complications were registered. At a minimum follow-up of 20 months, every single case was marched to a similar case where had been implanted a computer assisted cruciate retaining TKR. Criteria of matching were: sex, age, pre-operative range of motion and arthritis grade. In both the groups all the cases were assessed clinically using WOMAC, KKS and GIUM scores. All the knees were radiologically investigated using the same radiological protocol. Results. Intra operatively we did not registered any complication. No revision in both groups. The mean surgical time was 86 minutes (range: 78–121) in UKR+PFR group and 81 minutes (range: 71–112) in CAS-TKR group. There were no statistical significant differences in the hospital stay. No statistically significant difference was seen for the Knee Society, Functional and GIUM scores between the 2 groups. Statistically significant better WOMAC Function/Stiffness indexes were registered for the UKR+PFR group. CAS-TKR implants achieved a statistically better aligned mechanical axes. Conclusions. The results of this prospective short term prospective study suggest that UKR+PFR implant is a viable option for bicompartmental anteromedial arthritis at least as well as TKR but maintaining an higher level of function

Background. The reported outcomes of unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) for spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee (SPONK) often derive from small series with an average followup of 5 years, enabling to generate meaningful conclusions. Therefore, we determined the long-term functional results and the 10-years survivorship of the implant in all patients with advanced SPONK of the medial tibio-femoral compartment treated with a unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at our institute. Methods. We retrospectively evaluated 84 consecutive patients with late stage SPONK. All patients received a pre-operative MRI to confirm the diagnosis, to exclude any metaphyseal involvement and to assess the absence of significative degenerative changes in the lateral and PF compartment. Mean age at surgery was 66 years and mean body mass index (BMI) was 28.9. In all cases, SPONK involved the medial compartment; in 77 cases the medial femoral condyle (MFC) was involved, while in 7 cases the pathology site was the medial tibial plateau (MTP). Radiological evaluation was conducted by 3 different radiologists and clinical evaluation according to KSS and WOMAC score was performed by 3 fellows from outside institutions, with no previous clinical contact with the patients, at a mean followup of 98 months. Results. We found a significant improvement in VAS score for residual pain self-assessment and maximum knee flexion (p<0.0001). The 10-year Kaplan-Meier survivorship with revision for any reason as endpoint was 89%. Mean results at final observation point for global KSS and WOMAC score were 87.1 (range 45–100; standard deviation 13.8) and 12 (range 0–44; standard deviation 10.3), respectively. No patient had significant radiographic signs of osteoarthritis progression in the lateral compartment or in the patello-femoral compartment at final evaluation. Conclusions. Our findings suggest that medial UKR performed for late stage SPONK of the medial tibio-femoral compartment in selected patients provides satisfactory long term clinical and radiographical results, with a 10-years Kaplan-Meier survivorship of the implant of 89%

Introduction

Precision Freehand Sculpting(PFS), is a hand-held semi-active robotic technology for bone shaping that works within the surgical navigation framework. PFS can alternate between two control modes – one based on control of exposure of the cutting bur (“Exposure Control”) and another based on the control of the speed of the cutting bur (“Speed Control”). In this study we evaluate the performance of PFS in preparing the femoral bone surface for unicondylar knee replacement (UKR).

Radiological assessment of total and unicompartmental knee replacement remains an essential part of routine care and follow-up. Appreciation of the various measurements that can be identified radiologically is important. It is likely that routine plain radiographs will continue to be used, although there has been a trend towards using newer technologies such as CT, especially in a failing knee, where it provides more detailed information, albeit with a higher radiation exposure.

The purpose of this paper is to outline the radiological parameters used to evaluate knee replacements, describe how these are measured or classified, and review the current literature to determine their efficacy where possible.

The development and implementation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols are of particular interest in elective orthopaedics due to clinical benefits and cost effectiveness. The Wycombe Arthroplasty Rapid-Recovery Pathway (WARP) was designed to streamline hip and knee joint arthroplasty to reduce time spent in hospital whilst optimising outcomes in an NHS District General Hospital. 966 patients were admitted to Wycombe General Hospital for primary elective joint replacement (60 UKR, 446 THR, 460 TKR) during the period 1st September 2020 to 31st September 2022. The WARP pathway was used for 357 (37%) patients (32 UKR, 155 THR, 170 TKR) and the standard “non-WARP” pathway was used for 609 (63%) patients (28 UKR 291 THR, 290 TKR). Data was collected on length of stay, time of mobilisation, number of physiotherapy sessions, and inpatient morbidity. Average length of stay following UKR was 0.75 days for WARP vs 2.96 for non-WARP patients, following THR was 2.17 days for WARP vs 4.17 for non-WARP patients, following TKR was 3.4 days for WARP vs 3.92 for non-WARP patients. Day-0 mobilisation after UKR was achieved in 97% of WARP vs 12% of non-WARP patients, after THR in 43% of WARP vs 14% of non-WARP patients, after TKR in 33% of WARP vs 11% of non-WARP patients. Same-day discharge was achieved in the WARP cohort in 63% of UKR, 10% of THR, 2% of TKR patients. There were no same-day discharges in the non-WARP cohort. Complications delaying mobilisation (pain, nausea/vomiting, dizziness/low BP) were identified in 8.4% of WARP vs 25% of non-WARP patients. Our cohort study shows that the initiation of WARP Rapid Recovery pathway for joint arthroplasty decreased the average length of stay after UKR by 2.21 days, after THR by 2 days, after TKR by 0.52 days. Time to first mobilisation was decreased significantly by increased rates of same-day mobilisation and reduced rates of postoperative anaesthetic-related complications

Abstract. Introduction. Medial fix bearing unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) designs are consider safe and effective implants with many registries data and big cohort series showing excellent survivorship and clinical outcome comparable to that reported for the most expensive and surgically challenging medial UKR mobile bearing designs. However, whether all polyethylene tibial components (all-poly) provided comparable results to metal-backed modular components during medial fix bearing UKR remains unclear. There have been previous suggestions that all-poly tibia UKR implants might show unacceptable higher rates of early failure due to tibial component early loosening especially in high body max index (BMI) patients. This study aims to find out the short and long-term survival rate of all-poly tibia UKR and its relationship with implant thickness and patient demographics including sex, age, ASA and BMI. Material and Methods. we present the results of a series of 388 medial fixed bearing all-polly tibia UKR done in our institution by a single surgeon between 2007–2019. Results. We found out excellent implant survival with this all-poly tibia UKR design with 5 years survival rate: 96.42%, 7 years survival rate: 95.33%, and 10 years survival rate: 91.87%. Only 1.28% had early revision within 2 years. Conclusion. Fixed bearing medial all-poly tibia UKR shows excellent survivor rate at 2, 5, 7 and 10 years follow up and the survival rate is not related with sex, age, BMI, ASA grade or implant thickness. Contrary to the popular belief, we found out that only 1.71% of all implants was revised due to implant loosening

Abstract. Unicompartment knee replacement (UKR) has been an effective treatment of isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis (OA). There has been several studies which suggest that patellofemoral (PFJ) wear may not be a relative contraindication for UKR with no statistical difference in failure rates. There is currently conflicting evidence on the role of BMI. We will review if BMI and PFJ wear impacts on the post operative functional scores following UKR. A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database was performed. Data was collected between 26/6/2014 and 25/8/2022. 159 UKR procedures were identified. BMI and PFJ cartilage wear were collected. Oxford knee scores (OKS) were collected at > 2 years. PFJ wear was split into International Cartilage Research Society (ICRS) grades I&II and III&IV. 159 UKR procedures were identified, of these 115 had 2 year follow up. There were 77 who had OKS recorded at 2 years. For PFJ wear there was no statistical difference in the median OKS at 2 years 45 vs 43.5 (p=0.408). Assessing the BMI the median was 29kg/m. 2. , range 20–43kg/m. 2. Spearman's rank was performed to assess the correlation between BMI and >2 year OKS, this demonstrated a moderately negative correlation p(df)=−0.339 (CI 95% −0.538, −0.104) p=0.004. There is no statistically significant difference in >2 year OKS following UKR regardless of PFJ wear. There is a moderately negative correlation between BMI and >2 year OKS which was significant p=0.004. Therefore BMI is a more important consideration when counselling patients for UKR

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

Contemporary indications for unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) include bone on bone radiographic changes in the medial compartment with relatively preserved lateral and patellofemoral compartments. The role of MRI in identifying candidates for UKR is commonplace. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between radiographic and MRI pre-operative grade and outcome following UKR. A retrospective analysis of medial UKR patients from 2017 to 2021. Inclusion criteria were medial UKR for osteoarthritis with pre-operative and post-operative Oxford Knee Scores (OKS), pre-operative radiographs and MRI. 89 patients were included. Whilst all patients had grade 4 ICRS scores on MRI, 36/89 patients had grade 3 KL radiographic scores in the medial compartment, 50/89 had grade 4 KL scores on the medial compartment. Grade 3 KL with grade 4 IRCS medial compartment patients had a mean OKS change of 17.22 (Sd 9.190) meanwhile Grade 4 KL had a mean change of 17.54 (SD 9.001), with no statistical difference in the OKS change score following UKR between these two groups (p=0.873). Medial bone oedema was present in all but one patient. Whilst lateral compartment MRI ICRS scores ranged from 1 to 4 there was no association with MRI score of the lateral compartment and subsequent change in oxford score (P value 0.458). Patellofemoral Compartment (PFC) MRI ICRS ranged from 0 to 4. There was no association between PFC ICRS score and subsequent change in oxford knee score (P value .276). Radiographs may under report severity of some medial sided knee osteoarthritis. We conclude that in patients with grade 3 KL score that would normally not be considered for UKR, pre-operative MRI might identify grade 4 ICRS scores and this subset of patients have equivalent outcomes to patients with radiographic Grade 4 KL medial compartment osteoarthritis

The purpose of this study is to assess the long term results of combined ACL reconstruction and unicompartmental knee replacements (UKR). These patients have been selected for this combined operation due to their combination of instability symptoms from an absent ACL and unicompartmental arthritis. Retrospective review of 44 combined UKR and ACL reconstruction by a single surgeon. Surgeries included both medial and lateral UKR combined with either revision ACL reconstruction or primary ACL reconstruction. Patient reported outcomes were obtained preoperatively, at one year, 5 years and 10 years. Revision rate was followed up over 13 years for a mean of 7.4 years post-surgery. The average Oxford score at one year was 43 with an average increase from pre-operation to 1 year post operation of 15. For the 7 patients with 10 year follow up average oxford score was 42 at 1 year, 43 at 5 years and 45 at 10 years. There were 5 reoperations. 2 for revision to total knee arthroplasty and 1 for an exchange of bearing due to wear. The other 2 were the addition of another UKR. For those requiring reoperation the average time was 8 years. Younger more active patients presenting with ACL deficiency causing instability and unicompartmental arthritis are a difficult group to manage. Combining UKR and ACL reconstruction has scant evidence in regard to long term follow up but is a viable option for this select group. This paper has one of the largest cohorts with a reasonable follow up averaging 7.4 years and a revision rate of 11 percent. Combined unilateral knee replacements and ACL reconstruction can be a successful operation for patients with ACL rupture causing instability and unicompartmental arthritis

Background. There are advantages and disadvantages of Unicompartmental (UKR) and Total Knee Replacement, with UKR having better functional outcomes with fewer complications but a higher revision rate. The relative merits depend on patient characteristics. The aim was to compare UKR and TKR risk-benefits and cost-effectiveness in patients with severe systemic morbidity. Methods. Data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland was linked to hospital inpatient and patient-reported outcomes data. Patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade ≥3 undergoing UKR or TKR were identified. Propensity score stratification was used to compare 90-day complications and 5-year revision and mortality of 2,256 UKR and 57,682 TKR, and in a subset of 145 UKR and 23,344 TKR Oxford Knee Scores (OKS). A health-economic analysis was based on EQ-5D and NHS hospital costs. Results. The OKS was significantly better following UKR than TKR with a difference of 1.83 (95%CI 0.10–3.56). UKR was associated with lower relative risks of venous thromboembolism (0.33, CI0.15–0.74), myocardial infarction (0.73, CI0.36–1.45) and early joint infection (0.85, CI0.33–2.19) but only the decrease in venous thromboembolism was significant. The revision risk following UKR was significantly higher than following TKR (hazard ratio 2.70, CI2.15–3.38) and the mortality was significantly lower (0.52, CI0.36–0.74). At five years the cumulative incidence of revision was 8% higher with UKR, and the cumulative incidence of death was 13% lower. The health economic analysis found that UKR dominated TKR having lower costs (£359, CI340-378) and higher quality-of-life gains (0.33, CI-0.31–0.970). Conclusions. For patients with ASA ≥3, UKR was safer and more cost-effective than TKR. In particular if UKR was used instead of TKR the number of lives saved was higher than the number of extra revisions. UKR should be considered the first option for suitable patients with severe co-morbidity

Abstract. Introduction. Uni-compartmental knee replacement (UKR) has become popularised due to quicker recovery times, reduced postoperative pain, and blood loss. The desire to increase bed capacity and reduce costs, while preserving safety and patient satisfaction, has led to increased interest in day-case arthroplasty. This study observes the feasibility of UKR as a day-case procedure and whether this affects short and long-term postoperative outcomes. Methodology. Between 2018 and 2021, at a single institution and operated by a single orthopaedic surgeon, seventy-seven patients received a UKR on an elective basis. The patients were divided into two groups: ‘day-case’ for those discharged on the same day, and ‘non day-case’ group. Results. 31 patients were identified as day case procedures with the remaining 46 requiring between one to three days before discharge. Mean age, sex, modal ASA score, BMI, Charlson co-morbidity index, and pre-op oxford knee score showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups (p>0.05). No significant difference between the post-op oxford knee score at 1 year was found for patients treated and discharged as a day case procedure (37.8 +/− 6.88) and those who remained as an inpatient postoperatively (37.8 +/− 10.7); t(df) = −0.0007, p=0.994. No patients in either group suffered any complications beyond the peri-operative period. 30-day and 90-day readmission rates were equal. Conclusions. With no significant differences in post-op knee scores, complication, and readmission rates, we feel UKR can be performed as a viable day case procedure in a planned elective setting. This will result in significant cost savings

Due to shorter hospital stays and faster patient rehabilitation Unicompartmental Knee Replacements (UKR) are now considered more cost effective than Total Knee Joint Replacements (TKJR). Obesity however, has long been thought of as a relative contraindication to UKR due to an unproven theoretical concern of early loosening. This study is a retrospective review of patient reported outcome scores and revision rates of all UKR with recorded BMI performed by the Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB) from January 2011 and September 2021. Patient reported outcome scores were taken preoperatively, at 6 months, 1 year, 5 years and 10 years post operatively. These included WOMAC, Oxford, HAAS, UCLA, WHOQOL, normality, pain and patient satisfaction. 873 patients had functional scores recorded at 5 years and 164 patients had scores recorded at 10 years. Further sub-group analysis was performed based on patient BMI of <25, 25–30, 30–35 and >35. Revision data was available for 2377 UKRs performed in Christchurch during this period. Both obese (BMI >30) and non-obese (BMI <30) patients had significantly improved post-operative scores compared to preoperative. Pre-operatively obese patients had significantly lower functional scores except for pain and UCLA. All functional scores were lower in obese patients at 5 years but this did not meet minimum clinical difference. At 10 years, there was significantly lower HAAS, satisfaction and WOMAC scores for obese patients but no difference in Oxford, normality, WHOQOL, UCLA and pain scores. There was no significant difference in the improvement from pre-operative scores between obese and non-obese patients. All cause revision rate for obese patients at 10 years was 0.69 per 100 observed component years compared to 0.76 in non-obese. This was not statistically significant. Our study proves that UKR is an excellent option in obese patients with post-operative improvement in functional scores and 10 year survivorship equivalent to non-obese patients

Abstract. Introduction. After remodelling, loss of bone density beside the keel of cementless UKR tibial components has been observed as a potential cause of concern. How this affects patient-reported outcomes, and further clinical implications, is unclear. This study aims to assess the effect of cementless UKR implantation on tibial bone density, and to explore its relationship to patient demographics and outcomes. Method. This prospective study assesses 115 anterior-posterior radiographs from cementless UKR postoperatively and five years after surgery. Grey values from nine regions around each keel were collected and standardised to enable inter-radiograph comparison. Change between the post-operative and 5-year radiographs (indicating bone density) was calculated, and effect on 5-year patient demographics and pain and functional outcomes was assessed. Repeat measurements were performed by two operators to assess reliability. Results. There was excellent inter-operator correlation. There was increased bone density directly below the keel (9.1% vs 3.3%: p<0.0001), and reduced density beside the keel (−5.9% vs -1.0%, p<0.0001); comparisons to adjacent regions. Overall remodelling was significantly greater in smaller tibias (p=0.006), and females (p=0.01). Remodelling was unrelated to outcomes (OKS, ICOAP-A/B, TAS), age, and BMI. Conclusion. Remodelling patterns suggest increased loading below and decreased loading adjacent to the tibial keel. Remodelling is greater in smaller tibias and females. Remodelling is not related to any patient-reported pain or function five years after surgery, suggesting that remodelling is successful in removing any mechanical source of bone pain. Therefore, clinicians viewing such remodelling patterns can ignore them as they are of no consequence

Introduction. The number of medial unicompartmental knee replacements (UKR) performed for arthritis has increased and as such, revisions to total knee replacement (TKR) is increasing. Previous studies have investigated survivorship of UKR to TKR revision and functional outcomes compared to TKR to TKR revision, but have failed to detail the surgical considerations involved in these revisions. Our objectives are to investigate the detailed surgical considerations involved in UKR to TKR revisions. Methods. This study is a retrospective comparative analysis of a prospectively collected database. From 2005 to 2017, 61 revisions of UKR to TKR were completed at a single center. Our inclusion criteria included: revision of UKR to TKR or TKR to TKR with minimum 1 year follow-up. Our exclusion criteria include: single component and liner revisions and revision for infection. The 61 UKR to TKR revisions were matched 2:1 with respect to age, ASA and BMI to a group of 122 TKR to TKR revisions. The following data was collected: indication for and time to revision, operative skin to skin surgical time, the use of specialized equipment (augment size/location, stem use), intraoperative and postoperative complications, re-operations and outcome scores (WOMAC, Oxford 12, SF 12, satisfaction score). Results. There were no statistical differences between the demographic data from either group (age, BMI, ASA, sex and follow-up range). Progression of arthritis was the most common reason for revision in the UKR to TKR group (30/61, 49%, p < 0.001). Aseptic loosening was the most common reason for revision in the TKR to TKR group (73/122, 60%,) and was encountered more often than aseptic loosening in the UKR to TKR group (21/61, 35%, p=0.002). The operative time was longer in the TKR to TKR group (77 vs 112 min, p< 0.001). Femoral augmentation was required for one 1/61 (1.64%) UNI and 92/122 (75%) TKR revisions, respectively (p <0.001). Medial tibial augments were required in 9/61 (14.8%) of the UKR to TKR group while 12/122 (10%) and 10/122 (8%) of the TKR to TKR group required medial and full tibial augments, respectively (p=0.7). UKR to TKR revisions never required femoral stems while 120/122 (98%) of the TKR to TKR group did (p<0.001). Tibial stems were required in 19/61 (31%) and 122/122 (100%) of UKR to TKR and TKR to TKR groups, respectively (p<0.001). There was no statistical difference in the overall complication rate of either group (15% in the UKR to TKR group and 13% in the TKR to TKR group, p = 0.9). Stiffness was a common complication of UKR to TKR and TKR to TKR re-revisions at 2/61 (3%), and 6/122 (5%), respectively (P = 0.6). Aseptic loosening was also a common complication of in both groups at 2/61 (3%) and 4/122 (3%) in the UKR to TKR and TKR to TKR groups, respectively (p = 0.7). There was no statistical difference in the re-operation rate of either group (10% in the UKR to TKR group and 7% in the TKR to TKR group, P = 1). Stiffness was the most common indication for re-operation in the UKR to TKR group (2/61, 3%, p = 0.11) while aseptic loosening was the most common in the TKR to TKR group (4/122, 3.2%, p = 0.7). The survivorship in the UKR to TKR was 93% and 90% at 5 and 9 years, respectively. The survivorship in the TKR to TKR group was 95% and 94% at 5 and 9 years, respectively, which was not statistically different from the UKR group. Discussion. The most common reason for revision was different between the two groups (p < 0.001) while the skin to skin time was longer in the TKR to TKR group. In terms of revision components, femoral stems were never required in the UKR to TKR group while tibial stems were only required in 31%. Similarly, medial tibial augments were only required in 15% of the UKR to TKR group. While the surgeon must be prepared to use augmentation and stems in UKR to TKR revisions, they can often be completed with primary components and therefor will have an overall lower cost to the health care system. Furthermore, the survivorship and re-operation between the two groups was similar which supports previous literature. The results of this study will allow for a more in-depth cost-effectiveness analysis of UKR to TKR vs TKR to TKR in arthroplasty decision making. Unicompartmental knee replacements should be considered in appropriate patients to decrease the lifetime cost of arthroplasty intervention and potentially decrease the burden on the health care system. For figures, tables, or references, please contact authors directly

Between 1989 and 1992 we had 102 knees suitable for unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). They were randomised to receive either a St Georg Sled UKR or a Kinematic modular total knee replacement (TKR). The early results demonstrated that the UKR group had less complications and more rapid rehabilitation than the TKR group. At five years there were an equal number of failures in the two groups but the UKR group had more excellent results and a greater range of movement. The cases were reviewed by a research nurse at 8, 10 and 12 years after operation. We report the outcome at 15 years follow-up. A total of 43 patients (45 knees) died with their prosthetic knees intact. Throughout the review period the Bristol knee scores of the UKR group have been better and at 15 years 15 (71.4%) of the surviving UKRs and 10 (52.6%) of the surviving TKRs had achieved an excellent score. The 15 years survivorship rate based on revision or failure for any reason was 24 (89.8%) for UKR and 19 (78.7%) for TKR. During the 15 years of the review four UKRs and six TKRs failed. The better early results with UKR are maintained at 15 years with no greater failure rate. The median Bristol knee score of the UKR group was 91.1 at five years and 92 at 15 years, suggesting little functional deterioration in either the prosthesis or the remainder of the joint. These results justify the increased use of UKR

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

Introduction. Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) offers advantages over total knee replacement but has higher revision rates particularly for aseptic loosening. Cementless UKR was introduced in an attempt to address this. We used National Joint Registry (NJR) data to compare the 10-year results of cemented and cementless mobile bearing UKR whilst matching for important patient, implant and surgical factors. We also explored the influence of caseload on outcome. Methods. We performed a retrospective observational study using NJR data on 30,814 cemented and 9,708 cementless mobile bearing UKR implanted between 2004 and 2016. Logistic regression was utilised to calculate propensity scores allowing for matching of cemented and cementless groups for various patient, implant and surgical confounders, including surgeon's caseload, using a one to one ratio. 14,814 UKRs (7407 cemented and 7407 cementless) were propensity score matched. Outcomes studied were revision, defined as removal, addition or exchange of a component, and reasons for revision. Implant survival was compared using Cox regression models and groups were stratified according to surgeon caseload. Results. Based on raw unmatched data the 10 year survival for cementless and cemented UKR were 89% (95% CI 88%–90%) and 93% (CI 90%–96%), with cementless having a lower revision rate (Hazard ratio (HR)=0.59 (CI 0.52–0.68, p<0.001). However, there were differences between the cohorts in many potential confounding factors particularly surgeons caseload: Surgeons using cementless had a higher caseloads than those using cemented and for both cohorts the revision rate decreased with increasing caseload. Following matching, all potential confounders were well balanced and the 10-year survival for cementless and cemented were 90% (CI 88%–92%) and 93% (95% CI 90–96%) with cementless having a lower revision rate (HR 0.76; CI 0.64–0.91; p=0.003). This was due to rate of revision for aseptic loosening more than halving (p<0.001) in the cementless (n=31, 0.4%) compared to cemented (n=74, 1.0%) and the rate of revision for pain decreasing (p=0.03) in the cementless (n=34, 0.5%) compared to the cemented (n=55, 0.7%). However, the rate of peri-prosthetic fracture increased significantly (p=0.01) in the cementless (n=19, 0.3%) compared to the cemented (n=7, 0.1%). Following matching the decrease in revision rate with the cementless was similar for low (<10 cases/year; HR 0.74), medium (10–30 cases/year; HR 0.79) and high (>10 cases/year; HR 0.79) caseload surgeons. The 10- year survival for cementless and cemented were for low caseload 87% & 82%, medium caseload 94% & 92% and high caseload 98% & 94% respectively. Conclusions. This is the first study to compare the 10-year survival of the cementless and cemented mobile bearing UKR. We have demonstrated that the cementless device has a 24% reduced risk of revision and that this was independent of surgeon caseload and other important patient, surgical and implant confounders. This improvement was due to the rate of revision for aseptic loosening and pain halving. However, there was a small increase in rate of periprosthetic fracture. The results of both cemented and cementless UKR improved with increasing surgeon caseload. Low volume surgeons have poor results with both cemented and cementless UKR so should consider either stopping doing UKR or doing more. Medium and high volume surgeons should consider using the cementless. High volume surgeons using the cementless had particularly good results with a 10-year survival of 98%. For figures, tables, or references, please contact authors directly

Introduction. The commonest causes of revision of Unicompartmental Knee Replacement (UKR) in National Registers are loosening and pain. Cementless UKR was introduced to address loosening and was found, in small randomised studies, to have better radiographic fixation than Cemented UKR. Although non-significant these studies also suggested the clinical outcome was better with cementless. The aim of this larger study was to compare the pain and function of cementless and cemented UKR at five years. Methods. 263 Cemented and 266 Cementless UKR of identical design, implanted by four high volume surgeons for the same indications, were reviewed by independent physiotherapists at five years. Revision, re-operation, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), American Knee Society score (AKSS) and EQ-5D were assessed. Two pain specific scores were also used: Pain Detect (PD) and Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain (ICOAP). The pain scores were normalised onto a scale of 0 to 100 with 100 being the best. The cemented cohort was mainly implanted before the cementless, although there was considerable overlap. To explore whether differences were due to progressive improvement in surgical practice with time each cohort was divided into early and late subgroups. Results. Pre-operatively there were no differences between the devices in patient demographics or scores. At 5 years there were no differences in revision rate (0.8%), re-operation rate (2.2%) or medical complication rate (4%). The Cementless had significantly (p<0.05) better OKS (43 v 41), AKSS and EQ5D. There were significantly (p=0.03) fewer cementless cases with unexplained pain (2.3% v 6%). The cementless had significantly (p<0.002), less ‘strongest’ (84 v 76) and ‘average’ (90 v 85) pain as assessed by PD and less chronic (97 v 92) and intermittent (93 v 86) pain as assessed by ICOAP. Subgroup analysis found no significant differences in outcome between the early and late subgroups within the cohorts, whereas there were significant differences in outcomes between the late subgroup of the cemented cohort and the early subgroup of the cementless cohort. Discussion and Conclusion. Almost all outcome scores were significantly better following cementless compared to cemented UKR, suggesting that the cementless is better than cemented. However, as the cemented cases were mainly implanted before the cementless, it could be the difference was due to other factors, such as surgical technique or rehabilitation, that improved with time. This is unlikely to be the case as there were no differences between the early and late subgroups within the cohorts whereas there were differences between the late subgroup of the cemented cohort and the early subgroup of the cementless cohort which were implanted at a similar time. Although the functional scores following cementless are significantly better than cemented, the differences are similar to or smaller than the minimally clinical important difference (MCID) for these scores. In contrast there is significantly less pain following the cementless and the differences tended to be greater than the MCID. This suggests that Cementless UKR is associated with appreciably less pain and slightly better function than Cemented UKR. For figures, tables, or references, please contact authors directly

Symptomatic and asymptomatic deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) is a common complication of knee replacement, with an incidence of up to 85% in the absence of prophylaxis. National guidelines for thromboprophylaxis in knee replacement are derived from total knee replacement (TKR) data. No guidelines exist specific to unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). We investigated whether the type of knee arthroplasty (TKR or UKR) was related to the incidence of DVT and discuss the applicability of existing national guidelines for prophylaxis following UKR. . Data were collected prospectively on 3449 knee replacements, including procedure type, tourniquet time, surgeon, patient age, use of drains and gender. These variables were related to the incidence of symptomatic DVT. The overall DVT rate was 1.6%. The only variable that had an association with DVT was operation type, with TKR having a higher incidence than UKR (2.2% versus 0.3%, p < 0.001). These data show that the incidence of DVT after UKR is both clinically and statistically significantly lower than that after TKR. . TKR and UKR patients have different risk profiles for symptomatic DVT. The risk-benefit ratio for TKR that has been used to produce national guidelines may not be applicable to UKR. Further research is required to establish the most appropriate form of prophylaxis for UKR

The Oxford hip and knee scores (OHS and OKS) are validated patient-reported outcome measures used in patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR), hip resurfacing (HR), total knee replacement (TKR) and unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). We analysed the absolute OHS and OKS and change in scores following THR, HR, TKR, and UKR performed at one specialist centre. All patients undergoing and completing at least one Oxford score were eligible for inclusion in the study which included 27 950 OHS and 19 750 OKS in 13 682 patients. Data were analysed using non-linear quantile regression. The median absolute Oxford scores for THR, HR, TKR and UKR were pre-operative 68.8% (15.0/48), 58.3% (20.0/48), 66.7% (16.0/48), 60.4% (19.0/48) respectively: and post-operative asymptote was 14.6% (41.0/48), 5.8% (45.2/48), 31.2% (33.0/48), 29.2% (34.0/48). The median asymptotic change from the pre-operative score for THR, HR, TKR and UKR were 47.9% (23.0/48), 47.9% (23.0/48), 33.3% (16.0/48) and 32.4% (15.5/48), respectively. The median time at which no further appreciable change in score was achieved post-operatively was 0.7 years for THR, 1.1 years for HR, 0.9 years for TKR and 1.1 years for UKR. The curves produced from this analysis could be used to educate patients, and to audit the performance of a surgeon and an institution. The time to achieve a stable improvement in outcome varied between different types of joint replacement, which may have implications for the timing of post-operative review. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B:928–35

We reviewed the rate of revision of unicompartmental knee replacements (UKR) from the New Zealand Joint Registry between 1999 and 2008. There were 4284 UKRs, of which 236 required revision, 205 to a total knee replacement (U2T) and 31 to a further unicompartmental knee replacement (U2U). We used these data to establish whether the survival and functional outcome for revised UKRs were comparable with those of primary total knee replacement (TKR). The rate of revision for the U2T cohort was four times higher than that for a primary TKR (1.97 vs 0.48; p < 0.05). The mean Oxford Knee Score was also significantly worse in the U2T group than that of the primary TKR group (30.02 vs 37.16; p < 0.01). The rate of revision for conversion of a failed UKR to a further UKR (U2U cohort) was 13 times higher than that for a primary TKR. The poor outcome of a UKR converted to a primary TKR compared with a primary TKR should contra-indicate the use of a UKR as a more conservative procedure in the younger patient

Introduction. The revision rate of unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) in national joint registries is much higher than that of total knee replacements and that of UKR in cohort studies from multiple high-volume centres. The reasons for this are unclear but may be due to incorrect patient selection, inadequate surgical technique, and inappropriate indications for revision. Meniscal bearing UKR has well defined evidence based indications based on preoperative radiographs, the surgical technique can be assessed from post-operative radiographs and the reason for revision from pre-revision radiographs. However, for an accurate assessment aligned radiographs are required. The aim of the study was to determine why the revision rate of UKR in registries is so high by undertaking a radiographic review of revised UKR identified by the United Kingdom's (UK) National Joint Registry (NJR). Methods. A novel cross-sectional study was designed. Revised medial meniscal bearing UKR with primary operation registered with the NJR between 2006 and 2010 were identified. Participating centres from all over the country provided blinded pre-operative, post-operative, and pre-revision radiographs. Two observers reviewed the radiographs. Results. Radiographs were provided for 107 revised UKR from multiple centres. The recommended indications were not satisfied in 30%. The most common reason was the absence of bone-on-bone arthritis, and in 16 (19%) the medial joint space was normal or nearly normal. Post-operative films were mal-aligned in 50%. Significant surgical errors were seen in 50%, with most errors attributable to tibial component placement and orientation. No definite reason for revision was identified in 67%. Reasons for revision included disease progression (10%), tibial component loosening (7%), dislocation of the bearing (7%), infection (6%) femoral component loosening (3%), and peri-prosthetic fracture (2% - one femur, one tibia). Discussion and Conclusion. This study found that improper patient selection, inadequate surgical technique, inappropriate revisions and poorly taken radiographs all contributed to the high revision rate. There is a misconception that UKR should be used for early OA. Bone-on-bone arthritis is a requirement and was definitely not present in about 20%. There were many surgical errors, particularly related to the tibial cut: The new instrumentation should reduce this. There was a high prevalence of mal-aligned radiographs. Revisions should be avoided unless there is a definite problem, as the outcome of revision is usually poor in this situation. 80% of UKR revisions could potentially be avoided if surgeons adhered to the recommended indications for primary and revision surgery, and used the recommended surgical techniques. This study therefore suggests that if UKR was used appropriately the revision rate would be substantially lower and probably similar to that of TKR

With medial unicompartmental osteoarthritis (OA) there is occasionally a full-thickness ulcer of the cartilage on the medial side of the lateral femoral condyle. It is not clear whether this should be considered a contraindication to unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). The aim of this study was to determine why these ulcers occur, and whether they compromise the outcome of UKR. Case studies of knees with medial OA suggest that cartilage lesions on the medial side of the lateral condyle are caused by impingement on the lateral tibial spine as a result of the varus deformity and tibial subluxation. Following UKR the varus and the subluxation are corrected, so that impingement is prevented and the damaged part of the lateral femoral condyle is not transmitting load. An illustrative case report is presented. Out of 769 knees with OA of the medial compartment treated with the Oxford UKR, 59 (7.7%) had partial-thickness cartilage loss and 20 (2.6%) had a full-thickness cartilage deficit on the medial side of the lateral condyle. The mean Oxford Knee Score (OKS) at the last follow-up at a mean of four years was 41.9 (13 to 48) in those with partial-thickness cartilage loss and 41.0 (20 to 48) in those with full-thickness loss. In those with normal or superficially damaged cartilage the mean was 39.5 (5 to 48) and 39.7 (8 to 48), respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between the pre-operative OKS, the final review OKS or of change in the score in the various groups. We conclude that in medial compartment OA, damage to the medial side of the lateral femoral condyle is caused by impingement on the tibial spine and should not be considered a contraindication to an Oxford UKR, even if there is extensive full-thickness ulceration of the cartilage

Following arthroplasty of the knee, the patient’s perception of improvement in symptoms is fundamental to the assessment of outcome. Better clinical outcome may offset the inferior survival observed for some types of implant. By examining linked National Joint Registry (NJR) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data, we aimed to compare PROMs collected at a minimum of six months post-operatively for total (TKR: n = 23 393) and unicondylar knee replacements (UKR: n = 505). Improvements in knee-specific (Oxford knee score, OKS) and generic (EuroQol, EQ-5D) scores were compared and adjusted for case-mix differences using multiple regression. Whereas the improvements in the OKS and EQ-5D were significantly greater for TKR than for UKR, once adjustments were made for case-mix differences and pre-operative score, the improvements in the two scores were not significantly different. The adjusted mean differences in the improvement of OKS and EQ-5D were 0.0 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.9 to 0.9; p = 0.96) and 0.009 (95% CI -0.034 to 0.015; p = 0.37), respectively. We found no difference in the improvement of either knee-specific or general health outcomes between TKR and UKR in a large cohort of registry patients. With concerns about significantly higher revision rates for UKR observed in worldwide registries, we question the widespread use of an arthroplasty that does not confer a significant benefit in clinical outcome

The contraindications for unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) remain controversial. The views of many surgeons are based on Kozinn and Scott’s 1989 publication which stated that patients who weighed more than 82 kg, were younger than 60 years, undertook heavy labour, had exposed bone in the patellofemoral joint or chondrocalcinosis, were not ideal candidates for UKR. Our aim was to determine whether these potential contraindications should apply to patients with a mobile-bearing UKR. In order to do this the outcome of patients with these potential contraindications was compared with that of patients without the contraindications in a prospective series of 1000 UKRs. The outcome was assessed using the Oxford knee score, the American Knee Society score, the Tegner activity score, revision rate and survival. The clinical outcome of patients with each of the potential contraindications was similar to or better than those without each contraindication. Overall, 678 UKRs (68%) were performed in patients who had at least one potential contraindication and only 322 (32%) in patients deemed to be ideal. The survival at ten years was 97.0% (95% confidence interval 93.4 to 100.0) for those with potential contraindications and 93.6% (95% confidence interval 87.2 to 100.0) in the ideal patients. We conclude that the thresholds proposed by Kozinn and Scott using weight, age, activity, the state of the patellofemoral joint and chondrocalcinosis should not be considered to be contraindications for the use of the Oxford UKR

The Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) was designed to minimise wear utilising a fully-congruent, mobile, polyethylene bearing. Wear of polyethylene is a significant cause of revision surgery in UKR in the first decade, and the incidence increases in the second decade. Our study used model-based radiostereometric analysis to measure the combined wear of the upper and lower bearing surfaces in 13 medial-compartment Oxford UKRs at a mean of 20.9 years (17.2 to 25.9) post-operatively. The mean linear penetration of the polyethylene bearing was 1.04 mm (0.307 to 2.15), with a mean annual wear rate of 0.045 mm/year (0.016 to 0.099). The annual wear rate of the phase-2 bearings (mean 0.022 mm/year) was significantly less (p = 0.01) than that of phase-1 bearings (mean 0.07 mm/year). The linear wear rate of the Oxford UKR remains very low into the third decade. We believe that phase-2 bearings had lower wear rates than phase-1 implants because of the improved bearing design and surgical technique which decreased the incidence of impingement. We conclude that the design of the Oxford UKR gives low rates of wear in the long term

Varus malalignment after total knee replacement is associated with a poor outcome. Our aim was to determine whether the same was true for medial unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). The anatomical leg alignment was measured prospectively using a long-arm goniometer in 160 knees with an Oxford UKR. Patients were then grouped according to their mechanical leg alignment as neutral (5° to 10° of valgus), mild varus (0° to 4° of valgus) and marked varus (> 0° of varus). The groups were compared at five years in terms of absolute and change in the Oxford Knee score, American Knee Society score and the incidence of radiolucent lines. Post-operatively, 29 (18%) patients had mild varus and 13 (8%) had marked varus. The mean American Knee Society score worsened significantly (p < 0.001) with increasing varus. This difference disappeared if a three-point deduction for each degree of malalignment was removed. No other score deteriorated with increasing varus, and the frequency of occurrence of radiolucent lines was the same in each group. We therefore conclude that after Oxford UKR, about 25% of patients have varus alignment, but that this does not compromise their clinical or radiological outcome. Following UKR the deductions for malalignment in the American Knee Society score are not justified

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

Total knee replacement (TKR) is considered the “gold standard” treatment for advanced osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee with good survivorship and functional outcomes. However up to 20% of patients undergoing TKR may have unicompartmental disease only. Treatment options for medial compartment arthritis can include both unicompartmental knee replacements (UKR) and TKR. While some surgeons favor TKR with a proven track record, others prefer UKR due to more normal joint kinematics, better proprioception and better motion. There is also a higher rate of return to sports amongst patients with UKR compared to TKR. When considering all knee procedures, partial knee replacements account for 7–9%, primary TKRs for 83–88%, and revision knee replacements for 5–8%. Unicompartmental Knee Replacements comprise more than 90% of all partial knee replacement procedures. Proponents of UKR cite as advantages the preservation of normal knee kinematics, lower peri-operative morbidity, blood loss and infection risk compared with TKRs, as well as accelerated patient rehabilitation and recovery. However, partial knee replacements have a higher rate of revision than TKRs. This may be partly because they are inserted in patients with higher expectations, and partly because they are easier to revise. As a result, the volume of UKRs implanted has diminished over time and continues to decline. We compared patient reported outcomes, satisfaction and perception of normality of the knee post-operatively between UKR and TKR. A single unit and single surgeon series of patients were recruited. Data was collated for 68 well-matched patients with more than 24 months follow-up. UKR was undertaken in patients with isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis; stable ACL and less than grade 3 lateral patellar changes of the Outerbridge classification. TKR was undertaken for the rest. The patients were assessed with validated knee scores including the Total Knee Function Questionnaire (TKFQ) which focuses on recreational and sporting outcomes as well as activities of daily living (ADL). Patient satisfaction and perception of knee normality was measured on a visual analogue scale. Thirty-four patients with a TKR and 34 patients with a UKR were analyzed. The average ages in the TKR and UKR groups were 69.25 and 67.26 years, respectively. The patients were well-matched for demographics and had equivalent pre-operative morbidities and scores. The UKR group had better WOMAC (p=0.003), SF36 (physical: p<0.001 mental: p=0.25), Oxford knee (p<0.001) and Knee Society scores (p=0.002, function: p<0.001). The UKR group showed better outcomes in the TKFQ including exercise and sport (p= 0.02), movement and lifestyle (p=0.02) and the ADL (p=0.002). There was, however, no difference in patient satisfaction scores (p=0.41) and perception of how normal the knee felt between the two groups (p=0.99). A UKR procedure confers better functional outcome in terms of recreation and sport compared to TKR procedures. While UKR is an appropriate choice in the elderly yet active patient with unicompartmental knee arthritis, satisfaction is similar to that of patients with a TKR reflecting higher pre-operative expectations. We believe that in appropriate centers, the UKR procedure is associated with excellent outcomes. UKR should have a secure place in the knee arthroplasty armamentarium provided current knowledge regarding patient selection and surgical technique is followed

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

Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is associated with higher revision rates than total knee replacement and it has been suggested that surgeons should receive specific training for this prosthesis. We investigated the outcome of all UKR in a district general hospital over ten years. All patients who had received UKR from 2003 to 2013 were identified from theatre records, as were all revision knee arthroplasties. We contacted all patients (or their GP) with no known revision to ascertain UKR status. A life table analysis was used for three categories: all surgeons and types of UKR, Oxford UKR only and Oxford UKR by surgeons with specific training. There were 319 UKR (one loss to follow up), four types of prosthesis, 21 failures and a 5-year cumulative survival rate of 91.54%. There were 310 Oxford UKR with 17 failures and 5-year survival 93.56%. Surgeons with training in use of Oxford UKR completed 242 replacements with 10 failures and 5-year survival of 95.68%. In comparison with results for Oxford UKR in 11th annual NJR report, our results are satisfactory and support continued use of this prosthesis in a non-specialist centre. Our established programme of surveillance will monitor the survival of UKR in our hospital

Abstract. Introduction. In cementless UKR, early post-operative tibial fractures are 7x more common in very small tibias. A smaller keel has been shown to reduce this fracture risk, but its effect on fixation is unassessed. This mechanical study assesses the effect of keel interference and size on sagittal micromotion of the tibial component in physiological loading positions. Method. A high-resolution Digital Image Correlation setup was developed and validated to an accuracy of 50 micrometres. Variants of tibial components were 3D-printed: standard, no-interference, no-keel, and a new small keel. Components were implanted into bone-analogue foam which was machined to a CT-reconstructed small tibia, using surgical technique. Tibias were loaded to 200N in physiological loading positions: 8mm (step-up) and 15mm (lunge) posterior to midpoint, and micromotion was assessed. Results. In all tests, anterior lift-off was the largest micromotion observed. In ‘step-up’, a standard keel moved more than the no-interference and no-keel variants (340μm-vs-63μm-vs-30μm, p=0.002). In ‘lunge’ loading, the no-interference and no-keel variants moved more than the standard (826μm-vs-1003μm-vs-521μm, p=0.039). The small keel experienced less micromotion in ‘step-up’ (245μm-vs-340μm p=0.233, overall p=0.009) and ‘lunge’ (378μm-vs-521μm p=0.265, overall p=0.006) than the standard keel. Conclusion. The keel protects against large tibial micromotion during lunge movement. Counterintuitively, interference increases micromotion during step-up movement, likely due to implant pivoting around the bone-keel interface. Results suggest patients should be advised against lunge movements early post-operatively. The new smaller keel fixes similarly or better than the standard keel, making it viable for replacing the standard keel to potentially reduce fracture risk

The evidence to help the surgeon decide on the merits of which type of replacement to offer their patients is steadily mounting and comes from large datasets such as joint registries. There are many advantages of UKR vs TKR such as satisfaction, function, recovery, morbidity, mortality and cost but there is one major disadvantage. All registries show a higher failure rate with UKRs. Registries show that there are more excellent and fewer poor Patient Reported Outcome Measure Scores (PROMS) with UKR compared to TKR and the higher revision rate is in major part due to the threshold of revision. For instance, 60% of UKR are revised vs 10% of TKR with an Oxford score that is worse post-operation than pre-operation. Ease of revision with UKR is a major determinant of the higher revision rate. The real issue with UKR relates to usage. Most surgeons perform very few UKR on young patients with early arthritis viewing the procedure as a pre-TKR. Low surgeon volume equates to high revision rate in the national registries. Surgeons should either abandon UKR or do an adequate number to ensure success. Surgeons can improve their results by increasing their usage of UKR. The Unicompartmental Knee National Joint Registry (UKNJR) data shows that the optimal usage of the mobile UKR is between 20 and 50% of replacements. Fixed bearing usage is optimal at 20% but not higher. The other major advantage concerns the lower mortality rate with UKR. At 90 days it is less than half that of TKR and even at 8 years it is 10% less. For every 10 UKRs performed rather than TKR then one life is saved at 8 years. There is very little evidence suggesting that bi-UKR is necessary certainly with the mobile UKR. There is evidence, however that patellofemoral joint problems are a problem with fixed bearing UKR in the second decade

Abstract. Introduction. In cementless UKR, primary fixation of the tibial component is achieved by press-fitting a keel (i.e. with interference) into a vertical slot cut into the proximal tibia. This may adversely affect the structural integrity of surrounding bone. Early post-operative peri-prosthetic tibial fractures are 7x more common in very small knees, but the aetiology of these fractures is unknown - such sizes are rarely used in the UK but more common in Asian populations. This study explores the effect of keel-related features in fracture risk of these very small tibias. Method. This in vitro study compares the effect of keel and slot depth (standard vs 33% shallower vs nil) and loading position (anterior/posterior gait range limits: mid-tibia vs 8mm posterior) on fracture load and path. 3D-printed titanium components were implanted using surgical instrumentation/technique, in bone-analogue foam machined to a CT-reconstructed very small tibia which subsequently experienced a peri-prosthetic fracture. Results. Introducing a standard slot reduces load-to-fracture by 50% (1421N-vs-710N, p<0.0001). Press-fitting a standard keel further reduces load-to-fracture by 40% (710N-vs-423N, p=0.0001). A shallower slot/keel increases load-to-fracture substantially (slot: 27% increase, 904N-vs-710N p=0.0003, slot+keel: 60% increase, 683N-vs-423N p=0.0004). Deeper keels fractured more vertically (current 8.2° vs shallow 15.5° vs nil 21°, degrees-to-vertical, p<0.0001). There was no difference caused by loading position. Conclusion. In very small tibias, a standard cementless keel significantly weakens the bone and may contribute to fractures. Therefore, decreasing interference or using a shallower keel should decrease the risk of fracture, although it might compromise fixation

Aim. To assess the survivorship of unicompartmental replacements (UKR) revised to UKR. Background: Partial revision of UKR, or revision to a further UKR is a rarely performed procedure with some data from the Australian registry suggesting that results are not good, with early revision being required. Method. All revision procedures from initial UKR are prospectively followed and scored as part of our department's knee database. We analysed the 37 cases in our database that showed revision of UKR to UKR. These included cases in the following categories: a) Mobile bearing revised to mobile bearing (n=8) b) Mobile bearing revised to fixed bearing (n=20) c) Fixed bearing revised to fixed bearing (n=9). Results. The survivorship of revisions of mobile UKR to mobile UKR was 87.5% at a mean of 5 yrs. The survivorship of revisions from mobile UKR to fixed bearing UKR was 95% at a mean of 8 yrs. The survivorship of revisions from fixed bearing UKR to fixed bearing UKR was 78% at 15 yr (1 revised at 9yrs, 1 at 12 yrs). Conclusion. Despite the perception that revision of a UKR to another UKR is likely to fail and require early revision, our results suggest that in specific circumstances acceptable survivorship and outcome are possible. MULTIPLE DISCLOSURES

The Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is an established treatment option in the management of symptomatic end-stage medial compartmental osteoarthritis (MCOA), which works well in the young and active patient. However, previous studies have shown that it is reliable only in the presence of a functionally intact anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). This review reports the outcomes, at a mean of five years and a maximum of ten years, of 52 consecutive patients with a mean age of 51 years (36 to 57) who underwent staged or simultaneous ACL reconstruction and Oxford UKR. At the last follow-up (with one patient lost to follow-up), the mean Oxford knee score was 41 (. sd. 6.3; 17 to 48). Two patients required conversion to TKR: one for progression of lateral compartment osteoarthritis and one for infection. Implant survival at five years was 93% (95% CI 83 to 100). All but one patient reported being satisfied with the procedure. The outcome was not significantly influenced by age, gender, femoral or tibial tunnel placement, or whether the procedure was undertaken at one- or two-stages. In summary, ACL reconstruction and Oxford UKR gives good results in patients with end-stage MCOA secondary to ACL deficiency

For medial compartment disease UKR has many advantages over TKR. They give better function, faster recovery, lower morbidity and mortality but have a higher revision rate. Matched studies from the England and Wales National Joint Registry showed they are 60% more likely to achieve excellent outcomes (OKS>41) and 30% more likely to have excellent satisfaction. UKR patients were discharged 1.4 days earlier, had 35% less readmissions and 50% less major complications such as DVT/PE, infection, CVA and MI. The death rate was significantly lower: The hazard ratios being 0.2x at 30 days, 0.5x at 90 days and 0.85x at 8 years. However at 8 years the revision rate was 2x higher and the reoperation rate was 1.4x. If 100 patients receiving TKR had UKR instead, the result would be around one fewer death and three more reoperations in the first 4 years. If patients were aware of this most would select a UKR. The main reason why UKR have a high revision rate in registries is that most surgeons do small numbers and restrict their use to patients with very early disease, who often do badly. In the NJR 8% of knees are UKR and surgeons do on average 5 per year. Surgeons doing more than 20% of knees as UKR have a much lower re-operation rate which is similar to that of TKR. The Mobile bearing UKR can safely be used in up to 50% allowing many patients to have the advantages of UKR and a low re-operation rate

Objectives. How to position a unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) remains a matter of debate. We suggest an original technique based on the intra-operative anatomic and dynamic analysis of the operated knee by a navigation system, with a patient-specific reconstruction by the UKR. The goal of the current study was to assess the feasibility of the new technique and its potential pitfalls. Methods. 100 patients were consecutively operated on by implantation of a UKR with help of a well validated, non-image based navigation system, by one single surgeon. There were 41 men and 59 women, with a mean age of 68 years (range, 51 to 82 years). After data registration, the navigation system provided the dynamic measurement of the coronal tibio-femoral mechanical angle in full extension. The reducibility of the deformation was assessed by a manually applied torque in the valgus direction. The patient-specific analysis was based on the following hypotheses: 1) The normal medial laxity in full extension is 2° (after previous studies), 2) there was no abnormal medial laxity (which may be routinely accepted for varus knees) and 3) the total reducibility is the sum of the patient's own medial laxity and of the bone and cartilage loss. We assumed that the optimal correction may be calculated by the angle of maximal reducibility, less 2° to respect the normal medial laxity. The bone resections were performed accordingly to this calculated goal. No ligamentous balance or retension was performed. The fine tuning of the remaining laxity was performed by adapting the height of polyethylene component with a 1 mm step. The final measurements (coronal tibio-femoral angle in full extension and medial laxity in full extension) were performed with the navigation system after the final components fixation. The implantation had to fulfill these two parameters: optimal correction as defined previously, and a 2 ± 1° of medial laxity. Results. Before UKR, the mean coronal tibio-femoral angle in full extension was 3.9°± 2.4° without stress, and 0.7°+2.3° with valgus stress. The mean medial laxity in full extension before UKR was 3.2°+1.3°. After UKR, the mean coronal tibio-femoral angle in full extension was 2.6°+2.9°. The mean medial laxity in full extension after UKR was 1.9°+0.8°. The complete goal was obtained for 74% of the case. The optimal correction of the coronal tibio-femoral angle in full extension alone was achieved for 78% of the cases. 94% of the cases had an optimal medial laxity in full extension. Conclusion. The patient-specific UKR reconstruction according to the criteria defined was possible and its accuracy was good. The accuracy of a navigation system and the modularity of the prosthesis components seem to be significant prerequisites. The adaptation of the UKR to the patient may be easier, and the ligamentous physiology may be better restored because of the absence of any soft-tissue release. The final functional result may be improved

Medium-term survivorship of the Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) has not yet been established in an Asian population. We prospectively evaluated the outcome of 400 phase 3 Oxford UKRs in 320 Korean patients with a mean age at the time of operation of 69 years (48 to 82). The mean follow-up was 5.2 years (1 to 10). Clinical and radiological assessment was carried out pre- and post-operatively. At five years, the mean Knee Society knee and functional scores had increased significantly from 56.2 (30 to 91) pre-operatively to 87.2 (59 to 98) (p = 0.034) and from 59.2 (30 to 93) to 88.3 (50 to 100) (p = 0.021), respectively. The Oxford knee score increased from a mean of 25.8 (12 to 39) pre-operatively to 39.8 (25 to 58) at five years (p = 0.038). The ten-year survival rate was 94% (95% confidence interval 90.1 to 98.0). A total of 14 UKRs (3.5%) required revision. The most common reason for revision was dislocation of the bearing in 12 (3%). Conversion to a total knee replacement was required in two patients who developed osteoarthritis of the lateral compartment. This is the largest published series of UKR in Korean patients. It shows that the mid-term results after a minimally invasive Oxford phase 3 UKR can yield satisfactory clinical and functional results in this group of patients

Aseptic loosening of the femoral component is an important indication for revision surgery in unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). A new design of femoral component with an additional peg was introduced for the cemented Oxford UKR to increase its stability. The purpose of this study was to compare the primary stability of the two designs of component. Medial Oxford UKR was performed in 12 pairs of human cadaver knees. In each pair, one knee received the single peg and one received the twin peg design. Three dimensional micromotion and subsidence of the component in relation to the bone was measured under cyclical loading at flexion of 40° and 70° using an optical measuring system. Wilcoxon matched pairs signed-rank test was performed to detect differences between the two groups. . There was no significant difference in the relative micromotion (p = 0.791 and 0.380, respectively) and subsidence (p = 0.301 and 0.176, respectively) of the component between the two groups at both angles of flexion. Both designs of component offered good strength of fixation in this cadaver study. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:896–901

Introduction. Unicondylar knee replacement (UKR) surgery is proven long term results in its benefit in medial compartment OA. However, its results are sensitive to component alignment with poor alignment leading to early failure. The advent of computer navigation has resulted in improved mechanical alignment, but little has been published on the outcomes of navigated UKR surgery. We present the results of 253 consecutive Computer Assisted UKR's performed by a single surgeon. Objective. Assess clinical and radiological outcomes of Computer Assisted Unicondylar Knee Replacement at 5 years follow-up. Methods. Between August 2003 and June 2007, 253 UKR's were performed by a single surgeon using the Stryker Knee navigation system. Pre-operative Knee Society Scores (KSS) were recorded. The UKR's consisted of 98 oxford UKR's and 155 MG UKR's. Tourniquet time, time to straight leg raise and time to discharge was also recorded. All patients had post op KSS scores and long leg standing radiographs. Data regarding revision surgery was also collected. Results. Pre-op mean KSS scores was 54 (24–62) and post-op scores were a mean of 89 (75–100). 92% percent of femoral components were aligned at 90+/− 4 degrees from neutral in the coronal plane whilst eighty nine percent of tibial components were aligned at 90+/− 4 degrees from neutral in the coronal plane. Mean tourniquet time was 53 minutes whilst 98% of patients had SLR at 24hours. Only two percent of patients had an overall valgus alignment of their limb at the end of the procedure on long leg radiographs. 1% of the UKRs underwent revision for loosening of the femoral component. 1 oxford UKR was revised for progression of patello-femoral disease. One MG UKR was revised for unexplained pain. Conclusion. Our single surgeon series of Computer Assisted UKR demonstrates favourable outcomes in the medium term with 98% survival at 5 years. Computer Assisted UKR allows accurate and reproducible alignment of the tibial and femoral component. We recommend the use of Computer Navigation in performing Unicondylar Knee Replacements

Although it has been suggested that the outcome after revision of a unicondylar knee replacement (UKR) to total knee replacement (TKR) is better when the mechanism of failure is understood, a comparative study on this subject has not been undertaken. A total of 30 patients (30 knees) who underwent revision of their unsatisfactory UKR to TKR were included in the study: 15 patients with unexplained pain comprised group A and 15 patients with a defined cause for pain formed group B. The Oxford knee score (OKS), visual analogue scale for pain (VAS) and patient satisfaction were assessed before revision and at one year after revision, and compared between the groups. The mean OKS improved from 19 (10 to 30) to 25 (11 to 41) in group A and from 23 (11 to 45) to 38 (20 to 48) in group B. The mean VAS improved from 7.7 (5 to 10) to 5.4 (1 to 8) in group A and from 7.4 (2 to 9) to 1.7 (0 to 8) in group B. There was a statistically significant difference between the mean improvements in each group for both OKS (p = 0.022) and VAS (p = 0.002). Subgroup analysis in group A, performed in order to define a patient factor that predicts outcome of revision surgery in patients with unexplained pain, showed no pre-operative differences between both subgroups. These results may be used to inform patients about what to expect from revision surgery, highlighting that revision of UKR to TKR for unexplained pain generally results in a less favourable outcome than revision for a known cause of pain. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1204–8

Mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee replacements (UKRs) with a flat tibial plateau have not performed well in the lateral compartment, owing to a high dislocation rate. This led to the development of the Domed Lateral Oxford UKR (Domed OUKR) with a biconcave bearing. The aim of this study was to assess the survival and clinical outcomes of the Domed OUKR in a large patient cohort in the medium term. We prospectively evaluated 265 consecutive knees with isolated disease of the lateral compartment and a mean age at surgery of 64 years (32 to 90). At a mean follow-up of four years (. sd. 2.2, (0.5 to 8.3)) the mean Oxford knee score was 40 out of 48 (. sd. 7.4). A total of 12 knees (4.5%) had re-operations, of which four (1.5%) were for dislocation. All dislocations occurred in the first two years. Two (0.8%) were secondary to significant trauma that resulted in ruptured ligaments, and two (0.8%) were spontaneous. In four patients (1.5%) the UKR was converted to a primary TKR. Survival at eight years, with failure defined as any revision, was 92.1% (95% confidence interval 81.3 to 100). . The Domed Lateral OUKR gives good clinical outcomes, low re-operation and revision rates and a low dislocation rate in patients with isolated lateral compartmental disease, in the hands of the designer surgeons. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:59–64

We analysed data from the Oxford hip and knee questionnaires collected by the New Zealand Joint Registry at six months and five years after joint replacement, to determine if there was any relationship between the scores and the risk of early revision. Logistic regression of the six-month scores indicated that for every one-unit decrease in the Oxford score, the risk of revision within two years increased by 9.7% for total hip replacement (THR), 9.9% for total knee replacement (TKR) and 12.0% for unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). Our findings showed that 70% of the revisions within two years for TKR and 67% for THR and UKR would have been captured by monitoring the lowest 22%, 28% and 28%, respectively, of the Oxford scores. When analysed using the Kalairajah classification a score of < 27 (poor) was associated with a risk of revision within two years of 7.6% for THR, 7.0% for TKR and 24.3% for UKR, compared with risks of 0.7%, 0.7% and 1.8%, respectively, for scores > 34 (good or excellent). Our study confirms that the Oxford hip and knee scores at six months are useful predictors of early revision after THR and TKR and we recommend their use for the monitoring of the outcome and potential failure in these patients

We retrospectively studied the major complications occurring after one- and two-stage bilateral unicompartmental knee replacements (UKR). Between 1999 and 2008, 911 patients underwent 1150 UKRs through a minimally invasive approach in our unit. Of these, 159 patients (318 UKRs) had one-stage and 80 patients (160 UKRs) had two-stage bilateral UKRs. The bilateral UKR groups were comparable in age and American Society of Anaesthesiology grade, but more women were in the two-stage group (p = 0.019). Mechanical thromboprophylaxis was used in all cases. Major complications were recorded as death, pulmonary embolus, proximal deep-vein thrombosis and adverse cardiac events within 30 days of surgery. No statistical differences between the groups were found regarding the operating surgeon, the tourniquet time or minor complications except for distal deep-vein thrombosis. The anaesthetic times were longer for the two-stage group (p = 0.0001). Major complications were seen in 13 patients (8.2%) with one-stage operations but none were encountered in the two-stage group (p = 0.005). Distal deep-vein thrombosis was more frequent in the two-stage group (p = 0.036). Because of the significantly higher risk of major complications associated with one-stage bilateral UKR we advocate caution before undertaking such a procedure

Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is technically challenging, but has the advantage over total knee replacement (TKR) of conserving bone and ligaments, preserving knee range of movement and stability. Computer navigation allows for accurate placement of the components, important for preventing failures secondary to mal-alignment. Evidence suggests an increase in failure rates beyond 3 degrees of coronal mal-alignment. Our previous work has shown superior functional scores in those patients having undergone UKR, when compared with those having had TKR. However, to a certain extent, this is likely to be due to differences in the two cohorts. Those selected for UKRs are likely to be younger, with less advanced and less widespread degenerative disease. It is almost inevitable, therefore, that functional outcomes will be superior. We aimed to compare the functional and radiological outcomes of UKR vs TKR in a more matched population. Ninety-two patients having had one hundred consecutive computer navigated UKRs were reviewed both clinically and radiographically. The Smith & Nephew Accuris fixed-bearing modular prosthesis was used in all cases, with the ‘Brainlab’ navigation system. For our comparative group we identified patients who had actually undergone navigated TKR several years ago, but who, in retrospect, would have now been offered a UKR in line with our current practice. These patients were identified following review of pre-operative radiographs and operation notes, confirming degenerative disease confined mainly to one compartment of the knee, in the absence of any concern as to the integrity of the anterior cruciate ligament. This sub-group of patients were also assessed clinically and radiographically. Mean follow-up for the UKR group was 25 months, (range 8–45.) For our TKR sub-group, nineteen patients were identified. Average length of stay for the UKR group was 3.7 days, (range 2 to 7,) and for the TKR group this was 5.2 days, (range 3 to 10.). Functional scores (Oxford Knee Score) were good to excellent for the majority of patients in both groups, although they were significantly better in the UKR group. Mean Oxford Knee Score in the UKR group was 7.5, (0–48, with 0 being best.) Mean score in the TKR sub-group was 12.1. (p = 0.02). Reliably comparing TKR with UKR is difficult, due to the fundamental differences in the two groups. We have endeavoured to match these two cohorts as best possible, in order to compare the outcomes of both. Our use of computer navigation in both groups allows for accurate prosthesis placement. When measuring component position, there were no ‘outliers,’ outside of the widely accepted three degrees of deviation. We propose that, with the correct patient selection, UKR gives a better functional outcome than TKR. Longer-term follow-up of our UKR group is required to monitor the onset of progressive arthrosis in other joint compartments, although our early results are very encouraging. Furthermore, we advocate the use of computer navigation to firstly allow for more accurate component positioning, and secondly to make challenging UKR surgery less technically demanding

As many as 25% to 40% of unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) revisions are performed for pain, a possible cause of which is proximal tibial strain. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of UKR implant design and material on cortical and cancellous proximal tibial strain in a synthetic bone model. Composite Sawbone tibiae were implanted with cemented UKR components of different designs, either all-polyethylene or metal-backed. The tibiae were subsequently loaded in 500 N increments to 2500 N, unloading between increments. Cortical surface strain was measured using a digital image correlation technique. Cancellous damage was measured using acoustic emission, an engineering technique that detects sonic waves (‘hits’) produced when damage occurs in material. Anteromedial cortical surface strain showed significant differences between implants at 1500 N and 2500 N in the proximal 10 mm only (p < 0.001), with relative strain shielding in metal-backed implants. Acoustic emission showed significant differences in cancellous bone damage between implants at all loads (p = 0.001). All-polyethylene implants displayed 16.6 times the total number of cumulative acoustic emission hits as controls. All-polyethylene implants also displayed more hits than controls at all loads (p < 0.001), more than metal-backed implants at loads ≥ 1500 N (p < 0.001), and greater acoustic emission activity on unloading than controls (p = 0.01), reflecting a lack of implant stiffness. All-polyethylene implants were associated with a significant increase in damage at the microscopic level compared with metal-backed implants, even at low loads. All-polyethylene implants should be used with caution in patients who are likely to impose large loads across their knee joint. . Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1339–47

Background: Although many knee surgeons routinely perform unicompartmental replacement (UKR) for medial compartment arthrosis there is still reluctance to perform lateral UKR’s as they are generally thought to be less satisfactory. The purpose of the present study was to prospectively compare the outcome of lateral UKR’s with medial UKR’s using the AMC Uniglide knee implant. Methods: Between 2002 and 2005, 29 lateral fixed bearing AMC Uniglide UKR’s were performed at our unit. American Knee Society (AKS), Oxford and WOMAC scores were recorded pre-operatively and at two years post-op and compared with the results of 50 medial mobile bearing and 50 medial fixed bearing AMC Uni-glide UKR’s performed during the same time period. Data was acquired by a research nurse and recorded prospectively on the Bristol Knee Database. The mean ages of the patients were: 63 years in the lateral UKR group was, 62 years in the medial mobile bearing group and 69 in the medial fixed bearing group. The groups were equally sex matched with a predominate number of females in each group. There was no difference between the pre-operative scores for the 3 groups. Results: At one-year review, the 3 groups had similar mean scores: (table removed). Conclusions: This study suggests that at two years the quality of outcome of Lateral UKR’s is at least equivalent to both fixed and mobile bearing medial compartment UKR’s. However, continued long-term survivorship studies are needed to assess failure rates of Lateral fixed bearing UKR’s and particularly to evaluate progression of arthritis in the medial compartment. The procedure should form part of the knee surgeons’ armamentarium, but the differences in the operative techniques for lateral and medial UKR must be appreciated

Introduction. Unicondylar knee replacements (UKR) may be more effective compared to Total knee replacements (TKR) in unicompartmental arthritis. We report patient outcomes & satisfaction data in an age matched cohort of patients with either a UKR or TKR. Method. A single unit and single surgeon series of patients were recruited. Data was retrospectively collated for 68 patients with more than 24 months follow-up. UKR was undertaken in patients with isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis; stable ACL and less than grade 3 lateral patellar changes of the Outerbridge classification. TKR was undertaken for the rest. The patients were assessed with validated knee scores including the Total Knee Function Questionnaire (TKFQ) which focuses on recreational & sporting outcomes as well as activities of daily living (ADL). Patient satisfaction and perception of knee normality was measured on a visual analogue scale. Results. 34 patients with a TKR and 34 patients with a UKR were analysed. The average ages in the TKR and UKR groups were 69.25 and 67.26 years respectively. The patients were well matched for demographics and had equivalent preoperative morbidities and scores. The UKR group had better WOMAC (p=0.003), SF36 (physical: p<0.001 mental: p=0.25), Oxford knee (p<0.001) and Knee Society scores (p=0.002, function: p<0.001). The UKR group showed better outcomes in the TKFQ including exercise and sport (p= 0.02), movement and lifestyle (p=0.02) and the ADL (p=0.002). There was however no difference in patient satisfaction scores (p=0.41) and perception of how normal the knee felt between the two groups (p=0.99). Conclusions. A UKR procedure confers better functional outcome in terms of recreation and sport compared to TKR procedures. While UKR is an appropriate choice in the elderly yet active patient with unicompartmental knee arthritis, satisfaction is similar to that of patients with a TKR reflecting higher preoperative expectations. Further work is needed to assess this

Background: In a recent publication from the National Joint Registry it was suggested that prosthesis type influenced patient satisfaction at one year following knee arthroplasty. In this report Unicondylar Replacement (UKR) was associated with lower levels of patient satisfaction when compared to cemented TKR. The unicondylar group did however have a significantly lower Oxford Knee Score (OKS) than the TKR group and this occurred irrespective of patient age. A common perception is that UKR is only offered to patients with lesser disease, with a decreased clinical profile. This may explain their higher levels of dissatisfaction as the overall change in their OKS from pre to post operation would be relatively smaller than for TKR. Aim: We hypothesised that patients listed for UKR have less severe disease and therefore a lower preoperative OKS when compared to TKR. Methods: After sample size calculation we retrospectively analysed 76 patients who underwent either UKR or TKR under the care of a single surgeon. OKS was recorded at a dedicated pre-assessment clinic. The decision to offer UKR was based on clinical and radiological criteria as outlined by the Oxford group. Results: There were 38 patients in either group. The mean pre-operative OKS was 39.5 (26–56, SD 7.6) in the UKR group and 41.6 (31–51, SD 5.7) in the TKR group. There was no statistical difference between these two groups (p=0.18). Discussion: Patients listed for knee replacement have significant pain and functional impairment. In our population those suitable for UKR have similarly severe symptoms to those who do not meet the criteria for UKR and are only eligible for TKR. It remains unclear why patients undergoing UKR should be less satisfied when they have better post operative patient reported outcome scores. It emphasizes the need for careful patient selection and counselling in patient undergoing UKR

INTRODUCTION. Establishing a full-thickness cartilage in the lateral compartment and functionally intact ACL is vital before proceeding with unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). The aim of this study is to assess whether MRI is a useful adjunct in predicting suitability for UKR, as compared to standard and stress radiographs. METHODS. We identified 50 patients with a knee found suitable for UKR based on their standard and stress radiographs (full-thickness cartilage on lateral side). These patients underwent an additional cartilage-specific MRI scan to identify the status of ACL and the lateral compartment. The final decision regarding the suitability for UKR was based on the intra-operative observation. RESULTS. The mean age of patients was 65.1 years (49-79). Review of MRIs showed that in 44 (88%), the MRI scan agreed with the X-ray findings. These patients all underwent UKR after suitability was confirmed intra-operatively. In 6 (12%) patients, the cartilage-specific MRI scan was able to demonstrate significant lateral compartment arthritis in five patients and ACL damage in another. These findings were confirmed by direct observation at the time of surgery and a total knee replacement was performed. Conclusion. Stress radiographs are not completely accurate in ruling out involvement of contralateral compartment before UKR. If used alone, it may not detect a proportion of knees with full-thickness cartilage loss in the lateral compartment Despite doubts suggested in previous literature, our study suggests that cartilage-specific MRI can be a useful adjunct in the determining the status of the lateral compartment and ACL prior to UKR. It may be particularly useful for the younger population with osteoarthritis who would consent for UKR, but not TKR. This pilot study could guide further randomised trials to assess this particular impact of MRI

Between 1989 and 1992 102 knees adjudged suitable for Unicompartmental replacement (UKR) were randomised to receive either a St Georg Sled UKR or a Kinematic modular total knee replacement (TKR). The early results demonstrated that the UKR group had less complications, and more rapid rehabilitation. At 5 years there were equal failures but the UKR group had more excellent results and a greater range of movement. Despite this doubt persisted about whether these advantages would be maintained these cases have been followed regularly by a research nurse at 8, 10, 12 years. We now report the final outcome at 15 years. 43 patients (45 knees) have died with all their knees intact. Throughout the review period the Bristol Knee Scores (BKS) of the UKR group have been better and at 15 years 77% and 53% of the surviving UKRs and TKRs achieve an excellent score. 6 TKRs and 4 UKRs have failed during the 15 years of the review. Conclusion. The better early results with UKR are maintained at 15 years with no greater failure rate. The median BKS scores of the UKR group was 91.1 at five years and 92 at 15 years suggesting little functional deterioration in either the prosthesis or remainder of the joint. These results would seem to justify the increased use of UKR

Unicompartmental knee replacements (UKR) have many advantages over total replacements (TKR), including better function and less morbidity. However, in general, they have a higher failure rate. To minimise the UKR failure rate it is essential that the implant should not wear out, and that the appropriate indications and surgical techniques are used. The Oxford UKR has a fully congruent mobile bearing and has been shown in a retrieval study to have minimal wear. The indications for the use of Oxford UKR are clearly defined. It is recommended for medial compartment osteoarthritis, with a functionally intact Anterior Cruciate Ligament. The Varus deformity should be correctable and there should be full thickness cartilage in the lateral compartment, which is best demonstrated on a valgus stress radiograph. It is appropriate for about one in four osteoarthritic knees needing replacement. The designer, Mr Goodfellow, achieved a 98% (CI 93% to 100%) survival at 10 years, using the appropriate indications. However, data from the designer is open to bias. An independent series of 420 Oxford UKR from Dr Svard achieved a 94% (CI 86% to 100%) survival at 15 years, with no loss to follow-up. In the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register, in centres implanting at least 2 UKR per month, the survival rate of the Oxford UKR was 93% at 8 years. In centres doing very few UKR the failure rate was higher. These poor results were probably because of inappropriate indications or technique. To address the problem of inconsistent results new simplified instrumentation (Phase 3) has recently been introduced. This instrumentation has been specifically designed for a minimally invasive approach. Patients recover three times quicker after minimally invasive UKR than after TKR. A Radiographic comparison demonstrated the Oxford UKR can be implanted as precisely through a short incision as through a standard incision. A fluoroscopic study demonstrated that knee kinematics after minimally invasive UKR are virtually normal and are substantially better than after TKR. At one year the first 58 minimally invasive Oxford (Phase 3) UKR implanted by a single surgeon had an average flexion of 135°, Knee Society knee score of 97 and function score of 92. We conclude that UKR is the treatment of choice for medial compartment osteoarthritis provided appropriate implants, indications and surgical techniques are used

We report long-term results of the first non-designer study of the HA coated Unix UKR. 85 consecutive UKR's were carried out between 1998 and 2002 using the Unix cementless HA coated UKR. 7 were lost to follow up, 6 were deceased and 6 had undergone revision. The remainder had a mean follow-up of 10 years (range 8–13). Oxford Knee Scores, WOMAC questionnaire and radiological assessment were carried out. Average age at surgery was 65 years. The mean Oxford Knee Score was 38.56 (13–48) with 67% scoring over 40, the mean WOMAC Score was 20.16 (0–72) with 58% scoring under 15. Survivorship analysis showed a survival rate of 95% with aseptic loosening as the end-point. Radiographic assessment was carried out by the senior author and an independent radiologist and showed lysis around the tibial base plate in 6% of patients with no lysis evident around the central fin region. The Unix UKR has the unique design of a central horizontal fin inserting under the tibial spine. The survivorship results from this study confirm those of Epinette's showing 100% survivorship at 13 years. Australian Joint Registry data shows high revision rates for UKR's mainly due to tibial loosening. Approximately 70% of the force is transmitted through the medial compartment and recreating this in a UKR results in large forces in the antero-medial proximal tibia. Simpson et al found that with either a central fin or HA coating on the lateral wall, the strain levels in the proximal tibia fell by approximately 66%. We feel that the central fin design is key to dissipating large forces throughout the proximal tibia, resulting in low levels of tibial loosening reported in both the Unix UKR series to date

Background: The Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) use in the lateral compartment has been associated with a reduced flexion range and diminished femoral rollback. It is postulated that this may be due to a flat tibial tray replacing the domed anatomy of the lateral tibia, tightening the posterolateral flex-ion gap. A new design incorporating a domed tibial component and a biconcave meniscal bearing has been developed to increase; (i) the posterolateral flexion gap in deep knee flexion (ii) meniscal bearing movement and (iii) lateral femoral condyle (LFC) rollback. A cadaveric study was designed to test these three outcomes. Methods: The sagittal plane kinematics of seven thawed fresh frozen cadaver specimens within an upright Oxford testing rig were assessed under three different conditions; (i) intact normal cadaver knee (ii) flat lateral Oxford UKR (iii) domed lateral Oxford UKR. Each condition was tested during three ranges of motion (ROM) and data recorded during a flexion or extension half cycle. Knee flexion angle (KFA) and displacement measures of the lateral collateral ligament (LCL), LFC rollback and anteroposterior meniscal bearing movement were performed throughout knee ROM using four [3 linear, 1 rotary] potentiometer devices. Potentiometer data was recorded as a voltage reading and subsequently converted to either a millimetre displacement or degree measure using a calibration formula. All data points were compared at 10 degree interpolations of KFA. Results: The flexion half cycles demonstrated the flat Oxford lateral UKR achieved 80.7% of normal cadaveric LFC rollback. The domed Oxford lateral UKR achieved 108.8% of normal cadaveric LFC rollback. The ratio of LFC rollback in the domed to flat UKR’s was 1.35 times (134.9%). Meniscal bearing movement in flexion demonstrated a domed to flat UKR ratio of 1.3 times (129.7%). Similar values were obtained for extension half cycles in favour of the domed Oxford lateral UKR. No significant differences were identified in LCL measures. Conclusions: The domed Oxford lateral UKR implant allows for improved bearing movement and femoral rollback when compared to the flat Oxford lateral UKR. The sagittal plane kinematics of the domed Oxford lateral UKR as represented by femoral rollback values approximate those of the normal cadaver knee

The purpose of this paper was to investigate the predictability of outcome of a consecutive series of cemented unicompartmental or total knee replacements in a single surgeon series. Between September 2006 and February 2009, ninety-nine cemented, fixed bearing TKR were performed with patellar resurfacing. 52 cemented Miller Galante (Zimmer) Tibio-femoral UKR were performed in the same time interval. The minimum follow up was 6 months. Oxford and AKSS knee scores were collected prospectively at pre-operative and at routine follow up appointments. Pre-operative mean AKSS Knee score for TKR group was 33.9 and improved to 84.2 at 1 year. Mean scores for Tibiofemoral UKR were 40.4 improving to 84.3 at 1 year. Pre-operative mean Oxford knee score for TKR group was 34.6 (28%) and improved to 16.6 (65%) at 1 year. Mean scores for UKR were 28.5 (41%) improving to 14.0 (71%) at 1 year. These data would suggest that unicompartmental replacement performs as well as TKR. However, in the TKR group, 59% achieved a knee score >85 and 23% an Oxford score >80%. In the UKR group, 67% achieved knee score >85 and 45% an Oxford score >80%. Conversely, only 5% of TKR achieved knee score <50 and 20% Oxford score <50% whilst 10% of UKR had a knee score <50 and 26% and Oxford score <50%. These data show that whilst mean outcomes for TKR and UKR look similar, TKR offers a more predictable outcome with fewer clinical failures but also fewer excellent results. UKR offers a more polarised set of outcomes with far more clinically excellent results but also more clinical failures. These data can inform the ongoing debate regarding the role of unicompartmental arthroplasty. Patient selection is clearly critical but remains an inexact process

Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is an established and effective treatment for early unicondylar osteoarthritis of the knee. However good results will only be achieved with a UKR if appropriate implants, indications and surgical techniques are used. There are now many UKR available. The majority have been introduced recently and have no published clinical results, as a result it is not clear how well they will function. Wear is a potential problem with UKR because of thin polyethylene and small contact areas. To minimise wear we use a device with a fully congruous unconstrained mobile bearing, the Oxford UKR. The indications for UKR are confusing. The Oxford UKR is recommended for medial compartment osteoarthritis with full thickness cartilage loss and a functionally intact Anterior Cruciate Ligament. The Varus deformity should be correctable and there should be full thickness cartilage in the lateral compartment. It is appropriate for about one in four osteoarthritic knees needing replacement. With fixed bearing devices, because of problems with wear, the indications are narrower and contraindica–tions include young patients and damage to the Patello-femoral joint. These devices can however be used in the lateral compartment. There is currently a vogue to consider UKR as a pre-TKR. Under these circumstances the indications are relaxed and worse results are achieved. UKR are now routinely implanted through a minimally invasive approach, which decreases morbidity and aids recovery. There is concern that the small incision will compromise implantation. The techniques used range from free hand with a burr to sophisticated instrumentation. We use a mill to precisely restore ligament balance and function to normal and have shown that, with this instrumentation, the device can be implanted as precisely through a short incision as through a standard one. If appropriate implants, indications and surgical techniques are used then UKR achieve better short term functional results than both HTO and TKR, and they can achieve a long term survival that is similar to TKR and better than HTO. Under these circumstances we believe that UKR is the treatment of choice

We report a retrospective study of the major complications following one-stage and two-stage bilateral unicompartmental knee replacements (UKR). Between 1999 and 2008, 911 patients underwent 1150 UKRs through a minimally- invasive approach in our unit. Of these, 159 patients (318 UKRs) had one-stage bilateral UKR and 80 patients (160 UKRs) had two-stage bilateral UKRs. The remainder were unilateral UKRs. The bilateral UKR groups were comparable in age and ASA grade, but more females were in the two-staged group (p=0.019). Mechanical thromboprophylaxis was used in all cases. Major complications were recorded as death, pulmonary embolus, proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and adverse cardiac events within 30 days of surgery. No statistical differences between the groups were found regarding operating surgeon, tourniquet time or minor complications (excepting distal DVT). Anaesthetic times were greater for the two-stage group (p= 0.0001). Major complications were significantly more common with one-stage bilateral UKR (13 patients, 8.2%) compared to two-stage bilateral UKR (no patients) (p=0.005). Distal DVT was more frequent in the two-stage group (p=0.036). This series reports significantly higher risks of major complications are associated with one-stage bilateral UKR when compared to two-stage bilateral UKR. There is no evidence that the addition of chemical thrombo-prophylaxis would change this risk. We advocate caution before undertaking a one-stage bilateral UKR

Introduction and Aims: Several non-comparative studies for uni-compartmental knee replacement (UKR) and total knee replacement (TKR) have been published, but few provide a direct comparison in well-matched patients. The aim of this study was to assess five-year survivorship and the quality of outcome following UKR and TKR in pre-operatively matched patient groups. Method: From a prospective database of over 600 patients undergoing knee replacement for osteoarthritis, 70 primary medial Oxford UKRs (62 patients) were matched pre-operatively with 70 primary Kinematic TKRs (68 patients) for age, sex, body mass index, active range of movement (ROM) and Knee Society Score (KSS). The two groups were assessed at six, 18, 36 and 60 months following knee replacement and compared for survivorship of the prosthesis (with failure defined as revision for any reason or ‘worst-case’ assuming all patients lost to follow-up are revised), quality of outcome based on the KSS (reported as separate knee and function score) and the ROM achieved. Results: Three (4%) patients in the UKR group and two (3%) in the TKR group were unavailable for follow-up at five years. Five-year survivorship (Kaplan-Meier methodology) was significantly different for the two groups using revision for any reason as an endpoint – 90% for UKR, 100% for TKR (log-rank test, p=0.01). Assuming all patients lost to follow-up were revised, the ‘worst-case’ five-year survivorship was also significantly different for the two groups – 85% for UKR, 97% for TKR (log-rank test, p=0.02). Analysis of the KSS at six, 18, 36 and 60 months showed no significant difference between the two groups for the knee score (p=0.48) and the function score (p=0.1). The ROM achieved at five years was greater for the UKR group and the difference was statistically significant (UKR: Least square mean 105 degrees, standard error 1.2; TKR: Least square mean 98 degrees, standard error 1.2, p< 0.001). Conclusion: In comparable patients with osteoarthritis of the knee, survivorship remains superior for TKR at five years. The ROM achieved is greater for UKR, but there is no difference in the overall quality of outcome following UKR or TKR. We believe that UKR should only be performed in carefully selected cases because mid-term functional outcome is similar following UKR or TKR and the complication rate may be higher for UKR

Introduction. Reported advantages of unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) over total knee replacement (TKR) include better kinematics and less postoperative pain. The reported longevity of UKRs, regardless of design, still does not compare as favourably as that of TKR. Resurfacing-type UKR differ to other UKR in that they result in minimal bone resection. Objectives. The aim of this study was to review our experience with conversion of a resurfacing UKR prosthesis to a TKR. We sought to determine the causes of failure and compare outcomes in terms of functional scores, range of motion and radiographic measures. We also determined the use of graft and prosthetic revision supplements as well as stemmed implants. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed the records of 55 patients (Group A), all consecutive, who underwent TKR for a failed UKR from 2003–2008. We chose a cohort of 55 patients (Group B) who had undergone a primary TKR from the same surgeon's database that most closely resembled the study cohort in terms of sex, age and BMI. Results. The most common mode of failure was base-plate subsidence and progression of disease to other compartments. 55% of patients did not have isolated disease at the time of the initial surgery. Interestingly, 42% who had revision due to progression of disease had mult-icompartmental disease at initial UKR but 19 of 24 patients (79%) who had multi-compartmental disease were revised for other reasons other than progression of disease. 3 (5%) of patients required either tibial and/or femoral augments and/or stems. Conclusions. Only 5% required complex revision surgery. Thus, a large proportion of conversions of resurfacing UKR to TKR require non-complex surgery with patients having no significant differences in their radiographic measures nor in their clinical measures to those of primary knee replacements

Unicompartmental Knee Replacement (UKR) is associated with fewer complications, faster recovery and better function than Total Knee Replacement (TKR). However, joint registers demonstrate a higher revision rate, which limit their use. Common reasons for revision include aseptic loosening and pain. Currently most UKRs are cemented; Cementless UKR was introduced to address these problems. In a randomised trial cementless fixation was found to have similar outcome scores but fewer radiolucencies than cemented fixation. It was also quicker and simpler. In a large multicentre cohort study in the hands of experienced surgeons it was found that following cementless UKR the incidence of complications was similar to cemented and there were no additional contra-indications. There were also no complete radiolucencies, which are common after cemented fixation. These studies demonstrate that cementless UKR are safe and effective and achieve better fixation with fewer radiolucencies than cemented UKR. They therefor suggest that cemented fixation should decrease the incidence of revision for aseptic loosening and for pain associated with radiolucency, and as a result the revision rate of UKR in the joint registers should decrease. Preliminary data from the registries demonstrates that this is happening

Introduction To assess five-year survivorship and clinical outcome following unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) and total knee replacement (TKR) in pre-operatively matched patient groups. Methods From a prospective database of over 600 patients undergoing knee replacement for osteoarthritis, 70 primary Oxford UKRs (62 patients) were matched pre-operatively with 70 primary PFC TKRs (68 patients) for age, sex, body mass index, knee range of movement and Knee Society Score (KSS). The two groups were assessed at six, eighteen, thirty-six and sixty months following knee replacement and compared for survivorship of the prosthesis (with failure defined as revision for any reason or ‘worst-case’ assuming all patients lost to follow up are revised), post-operative ROM achieved and clinical outcome based on the KSS (reported as separate knee and function score). Results Three (5 percent) patients in the UKR group and two (3 percent) in the TKR group were unavailable for follow-up at five years. Five-year survivorship based on revision for any reason was 90 percent (95 percent Confidence Interval (CI): 82 to 98) for UKR and 100 percent (95 percent CI: 100 to 100) for TKR (log rank test: p=0.009). The ‘worst-case’ five-year survivorship (assuming all patients lost to follow up are revised) was 85 percent (95 percent CI: 76 to 94) for UKR and 97 percent (95 percent CI: 93 to 100) for TKR (log rank test: p=0.02). The mean post-operative ROM achieved was 105.3 degrees following UKR and 98.3 degrees following TKR (difference 7.0 (95 percent CI 3.3 to 10.6), p< 0.001). There was no difference in the KSS between the two groups for the knee score (difference 0.1 (95 percent CI: −4.3 to 4.5), p=0.9) and function score (difference 2.6 (95 percent CI: −1.7 to 6.9), p=0.2). Conclusion In comparable patients with osteoarthritis of the knee, survivorship remains superior for TKR at five years. The ROM achieved is greater for UKR but there is no difference in the overall clinical outcome following UKR or TKR. We believe that UKR should only be performed in carefully selected cases because mid-term clinical outcome is similar following UKR or TKR and the complication rate may be higher for UKR

Introduction: The minimally invasive approach using the Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacement (UKR) in medial compartment osteoarthritis has gained significant popularity. A number of advantages have been attributed both to UKR and minimal invasive surgery in unilateral replacement.We have therefore evaluated the outcomes of simultaneous bilateral UKR at our institution and report a unique way of safely positioning these patients. Method: Twenty patients were assessed undergoing bilateral UKR from 2001 to 2003. The study cohort included 11 females and 9 males with a mean age of 66 years. A matched cohort group undergoing simultaneous bilateral Total Knee Replacement (TKR) of 15 patients was evaluated as a control group. Peri -operative and later post- operative data was collected during hospitalisation or at standard outpatient follow -up. We will also demonstrate our unique patient positioning for bilateral UKR. Results: No significant difference was shown regarding mean tourniquet times (97.8 min in bilateral UKR, 92.1 min in bilateral TKR) and mean Haemoglobin drop (2.15 gdl with bilateral UKR, 2.82 gdl with bilateral TKR). We note a significant benefit in mean blood product requirement between the bilateral unicompartmental (0 units) and total knee groups (3 units). Incidence of peri-operative complications was higher in the total knee group (4 in bilateral TKR, none in the bilateral UKR group). No complication required surgery. There was a reduced mean hospital stay of 6 days in bilateral UKR compared with 9.3 days in bilateral TKR. With regard to late complications, each group had one complication, of stiffness. Radiographic evaluation at a mean 9 months showed 4of 30 UKR to have minimal malposition, with no clinical correlation.Patient satisfaction was evaluated using the Oxford Knee Score, showing 12 patients (80%) obtained excellent or good results and 3 patients (20%) scoring a moderate or poor result. The patients in the moderate and poor groups all complained of unilateral stiffness. Conclusion: It is possible to safely undertake bilateral simultaneous Oxford unicompartmental knee replacements using a minimally invasive technique using our described method of positioning, with good results for patients with symmetrical medial compartment knee arthritis.We note improved post-operative morbidity, physiological derangement and length of stay in our patients as compared to an age,sex,co morbidity-matched cohort of bilateral TKR patients

Purpose. Late stage medial unicompartmental osteoarthritic disease of the knee can be treated by either Total Knee Replacement (TKR) or Unicompartmental Replacement (UKR). As a precursor to the TOPKAT study this work tested the postulate that individual surgeons show high variation in the choice of treatment for individual patients. Method. Four surgeons representing four different levels of expertise or familiarity with partial knee replacement (UKR design centre knee surgeon, specialist knee surgeon, arthroplasty surgeon and a year six trainee) made a forced choice decision of whether they would perform a TKR or UKR based on the same pre-operative radiographic and clinical data in 140 individual patients. Consistency of decision was also evaluated for each surgeon 3 months later and the effect of additional clinical data was also evaluated. The sample consisted of the 100 patients who had subsequently undergone UKR and 40 who had undergone TKR. Results. The specialist knee surgeon from the design centre would have performed UKR in 80% of the patients. The other surgeons would have performed a UKR in between 32-43% of the patients representing a variation in decision making of up to 59%. The choice of treatment for each surgeon remained unchanged in between 80-87% of cases after viewing additional clinical data. There was high intra surgeon repeatability in decision making when assessed 3 months later. Conclusion. Despite being given identical information, surgeons show high variability in decision making for patients with medial OA of the knee. A knee surgeon with a special interest in partial knee replacement is twice as likely to choose UKR for a patient with medial compartment OA than a non specialist surgeon. The choice is predominantly based on radiological findings but decision making for each individual surgeon is reassuringly consistent. The implications are that if TKR and UKR have unequal efficacy, some patients may be undergoing a suboptimal procedure

Background: The Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) use in the lateral compartment has been associated with a reduced flexion range, increased medial compartment pain and a higher dislocation rate than seen with its medial counterpart due to the inadequacy of a flat tibial tray replacing the domed anatomy of the lateral tibia. A new design incorporating a domed tibial component and a biconcave meniscal bearing has been developed to overcome these problems. This current study was designed to establish whether this modi-fied ‘domed’ implant has maintained the established normal kinematic profile of the Oxford UKR. Methods: The study population consisted of 60 participants from three equal groups; Group 1- Normal volunteer knees (n = 20), Group 2 – Flat Oxford Lateral UKR’s (n = 20) and Group 3 – Domed Oxford Lateral UKR’s (n = 20). The sagittal plane kinematics of each involved knee was assessed continuously using videofluoroscopic analysis. A standardised protocol of step-up and deep lunge was used to assess loadbearing range of motion during which the patella tendon angle (PTA) was measured as a function of the knee flexion angle (KFA). Results: PTA/KFA values compared at 10 degree KFA increments from maximal extension to maximal flexion for all 3 groups did not demonstrate any statistically significant difference in PTA values between any group as measured by a 3-way ANOVA. The Domed implant achieved higher maximal active flexion during the lunge exercise than those with a Flat implant. Only 33% of the Flat UKR’s achieved KFA of 130 degrees or more under load whilst performing a lunge, compared with 75% of domed UKR’s and 90% of normal knees. No Flat UKR achieved a KFA of 140 degrees or more, yet 50% of all domed UKR’s did, as also did 60% of all normal knees. Conclusions: There is no significant difference in the sagittal plane kinematics of the domed and flat Oxford UKR’s. Both implant designs have a favourable kinematic profile closely resembling the normal knee. The domed knees though do have a greater range of motion under load as compared to the flats, approaching levels seen with the normal knee

Survivorship of unicondylar knee replacement (UKR) exceeds 85% at 10 years. During long term follow-up, progressive osteoarthritis (OA) and loosening are typical of UKR failure. The decision to revise UKR is complex as radiographic findings are not always consistent with clinical symptoms. This study of revised UKR compares intraoperative assessment of component fixation and progressive OA with prerevision radiographic evaluations. Twenty-seven UKR were retrieved from 22 female and 5 male patients. Patient age and time in situ averaged 76 (68–87) years and 79 (25–156) months, respectively. At index arthroplasty, all knees received a fixed-bearing medial UKR with cement fixation. Prior to revision, radiolucent lines and component alignment were assessed on radiographs according to Knee Society guidelines. Suspected revision reasons based on clinical and radiographic evaluation included aseptic loosening (63%), progressive OA (22%), and wear (15%). During revision surgery, component fixation was manually assessed and graded as well-fixed or loose, and progressive OA was graded using Outerbridge classification. Intraoperative and radiographic assessments were completed independently. Average Knee Society Scores declined > 30 points to 53+18 (pain) and 43+11 (function) before revision. During revision surgery, femoral and tibial component fixation were graded as loose in 19 (70%) and 9 (33%) knees, respectively. There was Grade III or IV progressive OA in the lateral or patellofemoral compartment of 15 (56%) and 16 (59%) knees, respectively. Radiolucent lines were evident in 8 of 19 loose femoral components and 5 of 9 loose tibial components. In contrast, 3 of 8 well-fixed femoral components and 6 of 18 well-fixed tibial components had radiolucent lines. There were 11 loose femoral components and 4 loose tibial components without radiolucent lines. Radiographic limb alignment averaged 3°+3° valgus immediately after index UKR. Change in limb alignment ranged from 0° to 17° at revision. Tibial or femoral component alignment changed 5° to 9° in 12 (44%) knees and > 10° in 5 (19%) knees. Eight of these 17 knees (47%) had malaligned components graded as loose. The prevalence of progressive OA at revision UKR was more than double occurrence suspected from radiographs. Interpreting radiographic indications for loosening was difficult. Radiolucent lines predicted loosening in 46% (13/28) of the components graded as loose and falsely predicted loosening in 35% (9/26) of the components graded as well-fixed. Radiolucent lines were absent in 15/28 (54%) of the loose components and changes in component alignment > 5° were associated with component loosening in < 50% of the knees. Rigorous attention to clinical symptoms and careful interpretation of radiographic phenomena are needed to determine indications for revision in UKR patients

Osteoarthritis of the knee usually affects the medial compartment first and may later involve the lateral compartment. In its early stages, the options for operative treatment are valgus high tibial osteotomy, unicompartmental arthroplasty, and total knee arthroplasty. The general feeling is that UKR offers potential advantages over the more extensive total knee replacement (TKR) procedure for the management of unicompartmental disease: preservation of bone stock, retention of the anterior and posterior cruciate ligaments, and preservation of both the patellofemoral joint and half of the weight-bearing articulating surface of the knee joint. The purpose of this paper was to review all our cases of UKR and their early complication rate and to try and determine the factors that led to the individual complications as well as an assessment of the technical difficulties experienced in managing these cases. Over a period of 5 years, 206 UKR procedures were performed in one hundred and eighty-five patients. There were 21 bilateral cases. Eighty-three cases were left-sided and eighty-one were right-sided. There were sixty-nine female and one hundred and sixteen male patients. The age of the patients averaged 63.7 years (range, thirty-two to eighty-nine years). Five surgeons were involved in performing the surgery. There were thirty-five cases of lateral, and one hundred and seventy-one cases of medial compartment osteoarthritis. Due to the five-year period that this study spans, different prostheses were used. Surgical complications: Early complications requiring repeat surgery were seen in thirty-one patients. The following early complications were seen:. Dislocation of polyethylene spacer: 7 cases. Subsiden. ce: 4 cases. Early loosening: 2 cases. Surgical error: Technical errors relating to the sizing and positioning of components occurred in five cases. Perioperative fracture:. One patient sustained a tibial fracture intra-operatively. Three cases of tibial fracture occurred within six weeks of the operation. Other compartment problems: The oldest patient in this series (89yrs) developed a rapid progression of osteoarthritis in the lateral compartment following a medial UKR within one year from her operation. Pain/Locking/Swelling/stiffness: This occurred in some patients necessitating surgical intervention. Non-surgical complications:. - One case of proximal tibia stress fracture occurred within 6 months post UKR. - Ongoing pain past the one-year mark occurred in five patients. - Superficial wound sepsis occurred in one patient. Summary of management within the First year following UKR:. - 31 (15%) Patients underwent further surgery. - 13 (6.3%) Patients had their UKR revised to a TKR. - 9 (4.4%) Patients had at least one arthroscopic procedure. - 7 (3.4%) Patients had a procedure to remedy an illfitting polyethylene spacer. Conclusions:. Most of the failures that we had within the first year post-operatively occurred due to either surgical technical error or patient selection. We concur with previous studies indicating that revision UKR to TKR should not be undertaken lightly. Adequate revision instrumentation should be available and careful planning should be carried out prior to embarking on this procedure. One should be prepared for significant bone loss in the affected compartment. Arthroscopic debridement and adhesiolysis can be very successful in patients with distinct catching and clicking associated with an effusion, post UKR. Some patients have unexplained pain and failing to find a causative factor, the patients can be reassured that there will be a high probability of this pain diminishing, or even disappearing. Subsidence of the tibial component may occur in older patients with generalized osteopaenia, and if not severe, it can be observed. It may not cause a clinical problem. It appears that the more cases one does, the less likely the chance of failure and revision

The aim was to identify frequency and pattern of early UKR failure in New Zealand. We analysed data from the New Zealand National Joint Register in a 44 month period of 2000–2003. Thirty-five percent of the 1790 registered UKRs were performed in the last 8 months [ie. in 18% of the total time period]. The ratio of UKRs to TKRs performed was 1:6.25. Fifty two revisions meant a failure rate of 2.9% for UKR (n=1790) compared with 1.6% for TKR (n=11243). The most commonly used implants were the Oxford P3 (68% of total with 2.2% revision rate), MG uni (14.6% with 4.6% revision rate) and Preservation (7% with 5.6 revision rate). The most common reasons for revision (n=52) were aseptic loosening (28%), bearing dislocation or impingement (19%), and unexplained pain (13%). The deep sepsis rate for UKR was 0.33% compared to 0.43% for TKR. UKR usage is rapidly increasing in NZ. The revision rate for UKR was 1.8 x that for TKR. The revision rate for deep sepsis was 77% that for TKR. Unexplained pain in apparently technically normal UKR was the 3rd most common reason for revision. Bearing impingement was as common as bearing dislocation as a cause for failure in the Oxford P3 UKR. Early polythene wear was the reason for revision only in the 8mm MG prosthesis

The aim of this study was to assess the perioperative complications associated with bilateral simultaneous UKR and compare them with those of unilateral UKR and bilateral TKRs. Over a 2 year period, 40 patients underwent bilateral simultaneous Preservation unicompartmental knee replacement UKR. They were compared to 40 matched unilateral UKRs and 28 bilateral simultaneous total knee replacement patients who had their operations during the same time period by the senior author. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of age, weight, ASA grade and throm-boprophylaxis received. There was no statistically significant difference in the complication rates of all 3 groups. When compared to 2 unilateral UKRs, bilateral simultaneous UKR results in a reduced operative time, blood loss and hospital stay but more blood transfusion. When compared to bilateral TKRs, bilateral simultaneous UKR results in reduced blood loss, reduced blood transfusion and hospital stay but an increased operative time. Bilateral UKR is a useful option in selected patients with bilateral unicompartmental osteoarthritis

The objective of this study was to determine if pre-operative gait patterns could predict which patients selected for unicondylar knee replacement (UKR) actually received a UKR or a total knee replacement (TKR). At the time of surgery, ten of the twenty-two UKR candidates presented with extensive degenerative changes and received total knee replacements. We analyzed gait, radiographic, and anthropometric data with a pattern recognition technique designed to detect biomechanical differences between the two groups. The groups were indistinguishable clinically, and radiographically, yet the pattern recognition technique identified features that completely separated the two groups based on the biomechanical differences. The objective of this study was to determine if pre-operative gait patterns could predict which patients selected for UKR actually received a UKR or a TKR. The UKR and TKR groups were indistinguishable visibly, clinically, and radiographically, yet the pattern recognition technique employed in this analysis identified features that completely separated the two groups. Biomechanical differences between the pre-operative groups could lead to more accurate diagnosis of unicompartmental knee OA as well as further understanding of the pathomechanics of knee OA. Twenty-two patients were initially diagnosed with unicompartmental knee OA of the medial side, and prescribed to receive unicompartmental knee replacements (UKR). At the time of surgery, ten of the twenty-two UKR candidates presented with more extensive degenerative changes and received total knee replacements (TKR). We measured gait data including knee joint angles forces and moments, velocity, stride length, stance percentage, and stance time as well as body mass index. Furthermore radiographic measures were taken including the Hip Knee Ankle (HKA) angle, the standing knee flexion angle, and the medial and lateral condyle joint spaces. The data were analysed using a pattern recognition technique that used principal component analysis to extract features from the data and discriminant analysis to separate the two groups. The discriminant function completely separated the UKR and TKR patients based on their pre-operative data. The most discriminatory feature represented a difference in early swing phase in the knee internal rotation moments

Cemented unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) has been used for many years and has excellent results in many follow-up studies. However, concerns about the quality of fixation, cementing errors, and radiolucent lines have encouraged the development of cementless prostheses. Mobile bearing UKR are probably the ideal implants for cementless fixation as the loads at the interface tend to be compressive. Prior to the widespread introduction of cementless mobile bearing UKR three studies have been performed to assess this device. In a randomised radiostereometric (RSA) study the migration of cementless and cemented devices were the same in the second year suggesting the quality of fixation achieved was similar. A clinical randomised study demonstrated a dramatic reduction in radiolucent lines with cementless components compared to cemented and no difference in clinical outcome. A prospective cohort study of 1000 patients demonstrated no overall difference in complications or revision rate and identified no contraindications for cementless fixation. There are however anecdotal reports of occasional tibial plateau fracture and early subsidence of cementless components. Data from the National Registers would suggest that the revision rate with cementless is about half that compared to cemented however this difference may be because only experienced surgeons are using the cementless device. Cementless mobile bearing UKR does seem to be a good evolutionary step in the development of UKR. It is important however that surgeons are trained in the use of the device and are careful with the technique

Introduction: Joint replacement has a low mortality rate, few adverse occurrences, excellent survivorship and is considered a cost-effective intervention to reduce disability in the community. However, the assessment of complications and survivorship fail to measure the success of joint replacement in achieving pain relief and restoration of functional ability. The aim of this large cross-sectional postal survey was to provide information on the prevalence of pain, disability, poor quality of life and patient dissatisfaction at 1–3 years after a range of lower limb orthopaedic surgeries in the UK. Patient and Methods: A questionnaire was posted to all 3,125 consecutive alive patients who underwent a primary THR, hip resurfacing, TKR, UKR or patellar resurfacing at the Avon Orthopaedic Centre between January 2004 – April 2006. The questionnaire included the WOMAC, HOOS/KOOS quality of life scale and a validated satisfaction scale. All questionnaires are scored on a 0–100 scale (worst-best) and a poor outcome was defined as a score of ≤ 50 on the outcome measure. Results: Completed questionnaires were received from 2,085 patients (response rate of 67%). Patients had a mean age of 67 years and 42% were male. The mean length of follow-up was 28 months (range 14–44 months). 911 patients had a THR, 157 patients had a hip resurfacing, 866 patients had a TKR, 100 patients had a UKR and 51 patients had a patellar resurfacing. Pain: the prevalence of poor outcomes were 6% of patients with a THR, 4% with a hip resurfacing, 12% with a TKR, 9% with a UKR and 31% with a patellar resurfacing. Function: the prevalence of poor outcomes were 12% of patients with a THR, 4% with a hip resurfacing, 16% with a TKR, 9% with a UKR and 35% with a patellar resurfacing. Hip-related quality of life: the prevalence of poor outcomes were 26% of patients with a THR, 12% with a hip resurfacing, 33% with a TKR, 32% with a UKR and 67% with a patellar resurfacing. Satisfaction: the prevalence of poor outcomes were 13% of patients with a THR, 8% with a hip resurfacing, 17% with a TKR, 11% with a UKR and 45% with a patellar resurfacing. Conclusion: This survey has provided descriptive data on the prevalence of patient-reported levels of pain, disability, poor joint-related quality of life and dissatisfaction after lower limb arthroplasty. It is important that patient-reported outcomes after joint replacement are rigorously assessed in order to provide information on which patients do poorly after surgery, with the aim of targeting these patients with an intervention to improve their outcome. North Bristol Trust Small Grants Scheme provided funding for the consumables for this study

Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) has good outcomes for the treatment of compartmental osteoarthritis of the knee. Mechanical alignment overcorrection is associated with early failure of the femoral and tibial components. Preoperative mechanical alignment is the most important predictor of postoperative alignment. However, most studies do not take into consideration the magnitude of preoperative deformity when reporting on mechanical alignment outcomes after UKR. We aimed to determine the magnitude of postoperative mechanical alignment achieved based on the magnitude of preoperative alignment; and to compare the number of cases of overcorrection into valgus to historical data. This was a radiographic review of patients who underwent robotic medial UKR by a single surgeon between 2007 and 2011. Two examiners measured pre- and postoperative mechanical alignment for all patients on long-leg radiographs. Patients were classified into three groups of preoperative mechanical alignment: mild varus (0–5®); moderate varus (5–10®); and severe varus (>10®). Patients with valgus alignment (<0®) were excluded. Linear regression was used to estimate the magnitude of postoperative alignment for each group, adjusting for age, BMI, gender, side, implant type, and polyethylene thickness. 89 patients were included. Mean preoperative alignment was 7.3® varus (95% CI = 6.6®–8®; range, 0.1–15® varus). Mean postoperative alignment was 2.8® varus (95% CI = 1.9®–3.8®; range, 1.4® valgus–9.7® varus). There was a significant difference in postoperative mechanical alignment between the three groups (Table 1) (P<0.05). Four overcorrections (4.5%) were detected, all under 1.5® valgus. This percentage of overcorrection was significantly better than previous conventional UKR reports (mean = 12.6%; P = 0.04). The magnitude of postoperative alignment in medial UKR depends on the severity of the preoperative deformity. Reports on radiographic outcomes of UKR should be stratified by the magnitude of preoperative alignment. The risk of overcorrection is reduced when using robotic assistance compared to using the conventional manual technique

Medial unicompartmental replacement (UKR) has been shown to have superior functional results to total knee replacement (TKR) in appropriately selected patients, and this has been associated with a resurgence of interest in the procedure. This may relate to evidence showing that the kinematic profile of UKR is similar to the normal knee, in comparison to TKR, which has abnormal kinematics. Concerns remain over the survivorship of UKR and work has suggested the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) may become dysfunctional over time. Cruciate mechanism dysfunction would produce poor kinematics and instability providing a potential mechanism of failure for the UKR. Aim: To test the hypothesis that the sagittal plane kinematics (and cruciate mechanism) of a fixed bearing medial UKR deteriorate over time (short to long term). A cross sectional study was designed in which 24 patients who had undergone successful UKR were recruited and divided into early (2–5 years) and late (> 9 years) groups according to time since surgery. Patients performed flexion/extension against gravity, and a step up. Video fluoroscopy of these activities was used to obtain the Patellar Tendon Angle (PTA), the angle between the long axis of the tibia and the patella tendon, as a function of knee flexion. This is a previously validated method of assessing sagittal plane kinematics of a knee joint. This work suggests the sagittal plane kinematics of a fixed bearing UKR is maintained in the long term. There is no evidence that the cruciate mechanism has failed at ten years. However, increased tibial bearing conformity from ‘dishing’, and adequate muscle control, cannot be ruled out as possible mechanisms for the satisfactory kinematics observed in the long term for this UKA

The Authors performed a matched paired study between 2 groups UKR or CA-TKR implanted with a mini-incision (MICA group) in the treatment of isolated medial compartment knee arthritis. The Authors hypothesized that UKR offers a real less invasive surgery with lower economical costs despite a worse limb/implant alignment. Furthermore at a minimum 40 months follow-up they hypothesized that this small implant guarantees still both better clinical score and patient satisfaction than in the MICA group. Thirty two patients with isolated medial compartment knee arthritis who underwent to a medial UKR from February 2001 to September 2002 were included in the study (UKR group). In all 32 knees the arthritic change was graded according to the classification of Älback . 1. Arthritic change did not exceed grade IV in the medial compartment and grade II in the patello-femoral compartment. All patients had an asymptomatic patello-femoral joint. All patients had a varus deformity lower than 8° and a body mass index lower than 30. No patient had any clinical evidence of ACL laxity or flexion deformity and all had a preoperative range of motion of a least 110°. At a minimum follow-up of 48 months, every single patients in group A was matched with a patient who had undergone a computer assisted TKR performed with a less invasive approach (shorter than 12 cm) for an isolated medial compartment knee arthritis between August 1999 and September 2002 (MICA group) in our hospital. At latest follow-up the clinical outcome was evaluated using both the Knee Society Score and a dedicated UKR score developed by the Italian Orthopaedic UKR Users Group (GIUM). The HKA angle and the Frontal Tibial Component angle (FTC) were measured at latest follow up on long leg standing anterior-posterior radiographs and the mean values between the 2 surgeons assessments were used as final values. Furthermore during the hospital staying we registered in both the groups when each patient was standing comfortably in full weight-bearing according to a self- answered questionnaire and the data were compared. Statistical analysis of the results was performed using parametric test (Student’s t-test). A statistical comparison of the percentage of results for the GIUM score was performed using the Chi-square test. A statistically significant result was given a p≤ 0.05. Both hospital stay and operative time were statistically longer obviously in MICA group. In the UKR group the mean surgical time was 51.5 minutes (range: 36–75) (p< 0.001) while in the MICA group was 108.8 minutes (range: 80–132) (p< 0.001). In the UKR group the patients remained in the hospital for a mean of 5.1 days (range: 3–7) and in the MICA group 8.2 days (range: 4–16). At the latest follow-up the mean Knee Society Score was 80.5 (range: 70–100) and 78.4 (range: 70–87) for group A and B respectively. No statistically significant difference was seen for the Knee Society score between the 2 groups (p=0.08). The mean Functional score was 83.5 (range: 73–100) for group A and 78.8 (range: 59–90) for group B. A statistically significant difference was seen for the Functional score with superior results for group A (p=0.02). A statistically significant difference was seen for the GIUM score with better results for group A (p=0.01). The mean GIUM score was 76 (range: 67–90) and 73.02 (mean: 65–85) for group A and B respectively. At latest follow up the mean HKA angle was 176.8° for group A (range: 174°–182°) and 179.3° for group B (range 177–182) (p< 0.001). The mean FTC angle was 86.9° (range: 84°–90°) and 89.4° (range: 87°–92°) for group A and B respectively (p< 0.001). All TKR implants were positioned within 4 degrees of a HKA angle of 180° and FTC angle of 90°. At the latest follow-up (minimum 48 months) no statistically significant difference was seen in the postoperative Knee Society score for either group. However, significant differences were seen between the 2 groups in the functional results and in the GIUM score with better results in the UKR group. All the patients achieved a range of motion greater than 120° and could walk for longer distances. During the hospital staying in this group the patients reported a statistically significant earlier full weight-bearing. This was despite a significant less accurate limb alignment. In addition to inferior results for the computer assisted mini-invasive TKR group the costs of the procedure were obviously greater because of the expensive implants and technology along with statistically significant longer surgical times and hospital stay

Introduction. The advantages of UKA include bone stock preservation, physiologic kinematics, retention of main knee ligaments, improved proprioception, & better functional outcome. A semi-active robotic system using CT-based data combined with intraoperative registration & tactile feedback has the potential for more precise implant placement & alignment. This purpose of this study was to compare robotic-assisted implantation (RAI) with conventional manual implantation (CMI) & to investigate whether this technology could lead to more reliable & reproducible outcomes. Methods. We prospectively collected data on 32 RAI UKR and 30 CMI UKR. Baseline data collection included: age, gender, BMI, comorbidities, diagnosis, & pre-operative SF-12 Physical Component, SF-12 Mental Component, WOMAC pain, WOMAC Stiffness, & WOMAC Physical Functional scores. Postoperatively, SF-12 & WOMAC scores were recorded, in addition to routine arthroplasty follow-up. Results. Preoperative characteristics were similar. At mean follow-up of 3.20 years (range 2 – 6.2 years), no significant differences were found on SF-12 Physical Component, SF-12 Mental Component, WOMAC pain, & WOMAC Physical Functional scores. Multivariate analysis demonstrated higher WOMAC stiffness scores (p=0.049) in the RA-UKR group. There was no component loosening, progression of the arthritis in the remaining compartments, infection, or PE wear in either group. Revision of UKA to TKA was performed in 1 RAI patient due to persistent medial pain. One technology failure occurred. Additionally, there was a significant increase in operative time in the RAI group (average 20.4 min; p < 0.01) and in OR turnover time (average 32%; p =0.022). Conclusion. No significant differences were found in function, pain, or mental well being at mid-term follow-up of patients that underwent either robotic assisted or conventional UKR. As has been found in other studies, there was improved mechanical alignment & component positioning radiographically but there were no significant differences in functional outcomes. Patient satisfaction is high & there is there is reduced patient cost when the procedure is performed conventionally. Robotic assisted procedures have been discontinued due to lack of clear advantages. We will continue to follow these patients to determine whether better clinical outcomes &/or increased implant longevity occurs over time

There is renewed interest in unicondylar knee replacements (UKR) to meet the increasing demand for less invasive surgical procedures for knee arthroplasty. UKR survivorship exceeds 85% at 10 years, with unconstrained (round-on-flat) designs showing significantly better survivorship than conforming designs. However, round-on-flat articulations have the potential for poor wear performance and more conforming, mobile-bearing UKR designs have been advocated. This study evaluates the wear performance of unconstrained UKR polyethylene bearings retrieved at revision knee arthroplasty. Forty-two UKR with fixed polyethylene tibial bearings were retrieved. Patient age and time in-situ averaged 73 (45–89) years and 7 (1–19) years, respectively. All knees had intact cruciate ligaments at index surgery. Revision reasons included loosening (45%), progressive arthritis (17%), polyethylene wear (17%), instability (5%), and other (17%). Retrospective radiographic review of radiolucent lines and component alignment was completed using Knee Society guidelines. Polyethylene articular damage size (% of articular surface area), location and damage mode incidence were measured using microscopy and digital image analysis. Damage area was centrally located and averaged 65%+22%. The largest damage areas consisted of abrasion (19%) and scratching (17%). Revision for loosening or wear was significantly correlated with greater damage area (Spearman Correlation, p=0.049). The incidence of scratching, pitting and abrasion each exceeded 70%, including 29 inserts with peripheral abrasive damage consistent with impingement between the polyethylene and extra-articular cement or bone. Anterior damage location and abrasion were significantly correlated with component position (p< 0.001). Concave surface deformation due to femoral component contact was externally rotated (24 inserts), consistent with tibial external rotation relative to the femoral component, neutrally aligned (11 inserts), internally rotated (4 inserts), and indeterminate (3 inserts). Despite initial tibiofemoral incongruity and concerns of high contact stress, round-on-flat UKR offers a durable knee arthroplasty. The relatively unconstrained tibiofemoral articulations allowed freedom of placement on the resected bone surfaces and a range of tibio-femoral rotation during activity, as demonstrated by the rotated concave surface deformations. Such deformation may reduce polyethylene contact stresses by increasing the tibio-femoral contact area. However, similar to retrieved mobile bearing UKR which show a 63% incidence of impingement, abrasive damage on these fixed bearing UKR has consequences for polyethylene debris generation and the transmission of shear forces to the bone-implant interface. Rigorous attention to conventional and minimally invasive surgical technique, including cement fixation and component position, is needed to reduce the incidence of abrasive polyethylene damage

The surgical treatment of unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis remains controversial. This study aims to compare the medium-term outcomes of age and gender matched patients treated with unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) and total knee replacement (TKR). We retrospectively reviewed pain, function and total knee society scores (KSS) for every UKR and age and gender matched TKR in NHS Tayside, with up to 10 years prospective data from Tayside Arthroplasty Audit Group. KSS was compared at 1, 3 and 5 years. Medical complications and joint revision were identified. Kaplan-Meier with revision as end-point was used for implants survival analysis. 602 UKRs were implanted between 2001 and 2013. Preoperative KSS for pain and total scores were not significantly different between UKRs and TKRs whereas preoperative function score was significantly better for UKRs. Function scores remained significantly better in UKRs from preoperative until 3 years follow up. Further analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in the change of function scores in both groups over time. There was a trend for TKRs to perform better than UKRs in pain scores. Total KSS for both groups were not significantly different at any point of the 5-year study. Fewer medical complications were reported in the UKR group. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a survival rate of 93.7% in UKRs and of 97% in TKRs (Log rank p-value = 0.012). The revision rate for UKR was twice as much as TKR. The theoretical advantages of UKR are not borne out by the findings in this study other than immediate postoperative complications

Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is an established treatment for single compartment end-stage arthrosis with good recorded survivorship. UKRs are often implanted into more active younger patients, but patient selection remains controversial. A recent study, led by the Royal College of Surgeons Clinical Effectiveness Unit, demonstrated that prosthesis revision rates decrease strongly with age (Van Der Meulen et al 2008). It has therefore been suggested that UKR should only be considered in elderly patients. This contrasts our observed experience of early revision cases leading us to compare these patients with a control group. Between September 2002 and 2008, 812 Oxford Mobile Bearing Medial UKRs were implanted. We compared all patients who underwent UKR revision to Total Knee Replacement (TKR) against a control group of 50 consecutive UKR patients. 20 implants have required revision to TKR in 19 patients since 2002. Median age at index surgery was 68 (range 48-81), median BMI was 31 (range 25-41.5), 17 patients were female (85%), and median implant survival was 25 months (range 6-57). Control group median age at index surgery was 66 (range 46-81), median BMI was 30 (range 22-51), and 27 patients were female (54%). Median Oxford Knee Score recorded in September 2009 was 36 (range 14-54) for revision patients and 21 (range 14-39) for the control group (p=0.021). Our UKR patients with early failure requiring revision are far more likely to be female (p=0.015), as well as older and with a higher BMI than the control group. We feel this is a subset of patients at high risk of failure, despite meeting all criteria for UKR. The underlying causes are likely to be multifactorial, but a key factor may be that this group has varus tricompartment osteoarthritis rather than classical anteromedial osteoarthritis. Our data counters recent advice based on National Joint Registry data

Introduction. Kozinn and Scott have made recommendations about contra-indications for unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). They suggest that patients younger than 60, weight > 82 kilograms, patients with exposed bone in patella-femoral compartment or patients who are physically active/perform heavy labour should not be offered a UKR. In addition, chondrocalcinosis is a contra-indication. These strict selection criteria are based on the experience with fixed bearing UKAs and are more intuitive than evidence based. The Oxford UKR has a fully congruous mobile bearing and has been shown to have minimal wear. Over the past 25 years, the Oxford Group has followed a standardised protocol for patient selection for UKR. We ignore patella-femoral joint pathology, chondrocalcinosis, patient's age, weight and activity level when deciding the suitability for UKR. Methods. Using the standardised indications, more than 1100 Oxford UKRs have been performed to date over the last 10 years. These patients are assessed pre-operatively and at regular intervals post-operatively in a dedicated research clinic. We present the results of these consecutive cases. Patients were classified into two groups: group I (satisfy Kozinn-Scott recommendations) and group II (outside recommendations). Results. Overall 70% of patients were outside Kozinn and Scott's indications (27% < 60 years, 47% > 82 kg, 12% chondrocalcinosis and 21% with patellofemoral damage with exposed bone as an inter-operative finding, 10% Tegner score 5 or more). No significant difference was noted either in 10 year survivorship or in 5-year clinical outcome (mean 5 year Oxford Knee Score [range 0 -48] for group I is 41 and 40.5 for group II). Discussion and Conclusion. These results suggest that the indications for UKR proposed by Kozinn and Scott are too narrow. Probably four times as many patients are appropriate for the mobile bearing Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacement than suggested

The purpose of the study was to investigate the outcome of Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) in patients over 70 years old and also to assess their ability to kneel. We identified from our prospectively collected knee database 90 patients (98 knees) undergoing Oxford medial UKR who were 70 years or older on the day of surgery. Oxford Knee Scores (OKS) were collected pre-operatively and also post-operatively at the following intervals: 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 5 years and then annually after this. The mean patient age at surgery was 73.2 years (range 70.2 – 84.3 years). The OKS pre-operatively had a mean of 35.8/60 (range 22-55) and improved to 23.6/60 post-operatively (range 14-34). Patient follow-up was 44.3 months and ranged from 12-111 months. Two patients were lost to follow-up, 1 was converted to a total knee replacement and 3 died of causes unrelated to the knee surgery. 91.7% of patients still had their original prostheses at last follow-up. Forty percent of patients stated they were able to kneel pre-operatively which improved to 50.2% postoperatively. This was consistent throughout all the follow up intervals that were assessed. Specific kneeling score from the OKS showed no statistically significant change with a mean of 3.94/5 pre-operatively and a mean of 3.54 averaged over all the post-operative follow up intervals. We conclude that medial Oxford UKR is a reliable operation in patients over 70 years old. Previous studies include a younger age group which potentially encourages the less familiar surgeon to use a UKR for the young active patient but continue with a total knee arthroplasty for the older patient. Our study suggests age should not be a factor when considering performing Oxford UKR. Ability to kneel is not altered significantly by UKR in this age group

NavioPFS™ is a hand-held robotic technology for bone shaping that employs computer control of a high-speed bone drill. There are two control modes – one based on control of exposure of the cutting bur and another based on the control of the speed of the cutting bur. The unicondylar knee replacement (UKR) application uses the image-free approach in which a mix of direct and kinematic referencing is used to define all parameters relevant for planning. After the bone cutting plan is generated, the user freely moves the NavioPFS handpiece over the bone surface, and carves out the parts of the bone targeted for removal. The real-time control loop controls the depth or speed of cut, thus resulting in the planned bone preparation. This experiment evaluates the accuracy of bone preparation and implant placement on cadaveric knees in a simulated clinical setting. Three operators performed medial UKR on two cadaver specimens (4 knees) using a proprietary implant design that takes advantage of the NavioPFS approach. In order to measure the placement of components, each component included a set of 8 conical divots in predetermined locations. To establish a shared reference frame, a set of four fiducial screws is inserted in each bone. All bones were cut using a 5 mm spherical bur. Exposure Control was the primary mode of operation for both condylar cuts – although the users utilised Speed Control to perform some of the more posterior burring activities and to prepare the peg holes. Postoperatively, positions of conical divots on the femoral and tibial implants and on the respective four fiducial screws were measured using a Microscribe digitising arm in order to compare the final and the planned implant position. All implants were placed within 1.5 mm of target position in any particular direction. Maximum translation error was 1.31 mm. Maximum rotational error was 1.90 degrees on a femoral and 3.26 degrees on a tibial component. RMS error over all components was 0.69mm/1.23 degrees. This is the first report of the performance of the NavioPFS system under clinical conditions. Although preliminary, the results are overall in accordance with previous sawbones studies and with the reports from comparable semi-active robotic systems that use real time control loop to control the cutting performance. The use of NavioPFS in UKR eliminates the need for conventional instrumentation and allows access to the bone through a reduced incision. By leveraging the surgeon's skill in manipulating soft tissues and actively optimising the tool's access to the bone, combined with the precision and reproducibility of the robotic control of bone cutting, we expect to make UKR surgery available to a wider patient population with isolated medial osteoarthritis that might otherwise receive a total knee replacement. In addition to accurate bone shaping with a handheld robotically controlled tool, NavioPFS system for UKR incorporates a CT-free planning system. This approach combines the practical advantages of not requiring pre-operative medical images, while still accurately gathering all key information, both geometric and kinematic, necessary for UKR planning

The purpose of this study was to investigate the surgical options for unicompartmental osteoarthritis (OA) in younger patients by comparing the survivorship and functional results of Total Knee Replacement (TKR) following osteotomy with the results for both primary TKR and revision of Unicompartmental Knee Replacement (UKR) to a TKR, and thereby recommend the most appropriate index procedure for this group of patients. We reviewed the revision rate and functional outcome of all patients who had a total knee replacement (TKR) following an osteotomy or Unicompartmental Knee Replacement (UKR) on the New Zealand Joint Registry. We used this data to compare the results to primary TKR scores, including comparison of age-matched subgroups. There were 711 patients who had undergone TKR as salvage for a failed osteotomy with a revision rate of 1.33 revisions per 100 component years and a mean Oxford knee score (OKS) of 36.9. 205 patients had failed UKR converted to TKR with a revision rate of 1.97 revisions per 100 component years and a mean OKS of 29.1. The revision scores of TKR for both failed osteotomy and failed UKR were significantly poorer than following primary TKR (p← 0.05). The mean OKS following revision of a UKR was significantly poorer than both primary TKR (p←0.001) and TKR for a failed osteotomy (p←0.001). There was no significant difference in mean OKS between primary TKR and TKR for a failed osteotomy, even amongst patients younger than 65 years (p=0.8). This study has shown that if a surgeon is choosing between an osteotomy and a UKR in the younger patient than the better for any subsequent revision procedure will be achieved with an osteotomy. Revision of a failed osteotomy to a TKR has improved functional results compared to revision of a failed UKR. However, both yield poor survivorship rate compared to primary TKR

INTRODUCTION:. Despite clear clinical advantages Unicompartimetal Knee Replacement still remain an high demanding and less forgiving surgical procedure. Different Authors in literature pointed out how malalignment increases the rate of aseptic failure even more than in TKR. Computer-assisted surgery has been proposed to improve implant positioning in joint replacement surgery with no need of intramedullary guide despite no still proven clinical advantages. Likewise more recently Patient Specific Instrumentation (PSI) has been suggested, even in partial knee reconstruction, as a new technology capable of new advantages such as shorter surgical times and lower blood losses maintaining at least the same accuracy. Aim of the study is to present a prospective study comparing 2 groups of UKR s using either a computer assisted technique or a CT-based Patient Specific Instrumentation. MATERIALS AND METHODS:. Since January 2010, 54 patients undergoing UKR because medial compartment arthritis were enrolled in the study prospectively. Before surgery patients were alternatively assigned to either computer-assisted alignment (group A) or patient specific instrumentation group (group B). In the group A (27 knees) the implant (Sigma, Depuy Orthopaedics Inc, Warsaw, Indiana, USA) was positioned using a CT-free computer assisted alignment system specifically created for UKR surgery (OrthoKey, Delaware, USA). In group B (27 knees) the implant (GMK Uni, Medacta, Castel San Pietro, Switzerland) was performed using a CT-based PSI technology (MyKnee, Medacta, Castel San Pietro, Switzerland). In both the groups all the implants were cemented and using always a fixed metal backed tibial component. The surgical time and complications were documented in all cases. Six months post-operatively the patients underwent to the same radiological investigation to determine the frontal femoral component angle (FFC), the frontal tibial component angle (FTC), the hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA) and the sagittal orientation (slope) of tibial/femoral components. The number and percentage of outliners for each parameter was determined. In addition the percentage of patients in each group with all 5 parameters within the desired range was calculated. Furthermore the 2 groups were clinically assessed using KSS and Functional score. RESULTS:. There were no differences in the clinical outcome. The mean surgical time was longer in the navigated group of a mean of 5.9 minutes without any statistical differences in complications. The mechanical axes, tibial slope the FTC angle were significantly better aligned in the navigated group. A statistically significant higher number of outliners was seen in the PSI group. The number of implants with all 5 radiological parameters aligned within the desired range was statistically higher in the navigated group. All the implants in the navigated group were correctly aligned in all the planned parameters. Discussion:. To our knowledge this is the first prospective study in literature assessing navigation compared to PSI technique in UKR surgery. Despite a slight not significant longer surgical time in the navigated group, at a short follow-up the results could not demonstrate any clinical differences between the 2 technologies However according to their results the Authors indicate navigation as more helpful in UKR surgery compared to PSI technology in terms of accuracy

There is renewed interest in unicondylar knee replacements (UKR) to meet the increasing demand for less invasive surgical procedures for knee arthroplasty. UKR survivorship exceeds 85% at 10 years, with unconstrained (round-on-flat) designs showing significantly better survivorship than conforming designs. However, round-on-flat articulation shave the potential for poor wear performance and more conforming, mobile-bearing UKR designs have been advocated. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the wear performance of unconstrained UKR polyethylene bearings retrieved at revision knee arthroplasty. Forty-two UKR (eight designs) were retrieved from 26 female and 16 male patients. Patient age averaged 73+10 (45–89) years and time in-situ averaged 7+4 (1–19) years. Revision reasons included loosening (45%), progressive osteoarthritis (17%), polyethylene wear (14%), instability (5%), and other (19%). Retrospective radiographic review of radiolucent lines and component alignment was completed. Polyethylene damage (severity score, 0–3) and location were measured using optical microscopy and digital image analysis. 81% of the polyethylene inserts had a concave deformation located on the central or posterior third of the articular surface, consistent with damage due to femoral component articulation. Abrasive damage on 29 (69%) inserts was consistent with impingement between the polyethylene and extra-articular cement or bone. There was delamination in the central region of 7 (17%) inserts and on the extreme posterior rim of 3 (7%) inserts. Severity score averaged 2.0+1.2 for abrasion and 0.5+1.0 for delamination. Radiographic component position was correlated with abrasive polyethylene damage. Despite initial tibiofemoral incongruity and concerns of high contact stress, round-on-flat UKR offers a durable knee arthroplasty. Delamination was infrequent and did not correlate with time in-situ. Rather, polyethylene cold flow increased the contact area during in-vivo function. Rigorous attention to cement technique and component position may reduce the incidence of abrasive damage on UKR polyethylene inserts

Joint registries report that 25–40% of UKR revisions are performed for pain. Proximal tibial strain and microdamage are possible causes of this “unexplained” pain. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of UKR implant design and material on proximal tibial cortical strain and cancellous microdamage. Composite Sawbone tibias were implanted with cemented UKR components: 5 fixed bearing all-polyethylene (FB-AP), 5 fixed bearing metal backed (FB-MB), and 5 mobile bearing metal backed implants (MB-MB). Five intact tibias were used as controls. Tibias were loaded in 500N increments to 2500N. Cortical surface strain was measured using digital image correlation (DIC). Cancellous microdamage was measured using acoustic emission (AE), a technique which detects elastic waves produced by the rapid release of energy during microdamage events. DIC showed significant differences in anteromedial cortical strain between implants at 1500N and 2500N in the proximal 10mm only (p<0.001) with strain shielding in metal backed implants. AE showed significant differences in cancellous microdamage (AE hits), between implants at all loads (p=0.001). FB-AP implants displayed significantly more hits at all loads than both controls and metal backed implants (p<0.001). FB-AP implants also differed significantly by displaying AE hits on unloading (p=0.01), reflecting a lack of implant stiffness. Compared to controls, the FB-AP implant displayed 15x the total AE hits, the FB-MB 6x and the MB-MB 2.7x. All-polyethylene medial UKR implants are associated with greater cancellous bone microdamage than metal backed implants even at low loads

INTRODUCTION. Despite clear clinical advantages Unicompartimetal Knee Replacement (UKR) still remain a high demanding and less forgiving surgical procedure. Different Authors in literature pointed out how in coronal tibial malalignment beyond 3° as well as tibial slope beyond 7° increase the rate of aseptic failure. Likewise, overcorrection in the coronal plain is a well recognised cause of failure because of an overweighting on the controlateral compartment. Furthermore it has been shown how in UKR surgery even using short narrow intramedullary guide this can cause errors in both coronal planes. Computer assisted surgery has been proposed to improve implant positioning in joint replacement surgery with no need of intramedullary guide. Likewise more recently Patient Specific Instrumentation (PSI) has been suggested as a new technology capable of new advantages such as shorter surgical times and lower blood losses maintaining at least the same accuracy. Aim of this prospective study is to present comparing 2 groups of UKRs using either a computer assisted technique or a CT based PSI. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Since January 2010 54 patients undergoing UKR because of medial compartment arthritis were prospectively enrolled in the study. Before surgery patients were alternatively assigned to either computer-assisted alignment (group A) or PSI group (group B). In the group A (27 knees) the implant (Sigma, Depuy Orthopaedics Inc, Warsaw, Indiana, USA) was positioned using a CT-free computer assisted alignment system specifically created for UKR surgery (OrthoKey, Delaware, USA USA). In group B (27knees) the implant (GMK uni, Medacta, Castel San Pietro, Switzerland) was performed using a CT-Based PSI technology (MyKnee, Medacta, Castel San Pietro, Switzerland). In both the groups all the implants were cemented and using always a fixed metal backed tibial component. The duration of surgery and all the complications according to Kim classification were documented in all cases. Six months after surgery each patient had long-leg standing anterior-posterior radiographs and lateral radiographs of the knee. The radiographs were assessed to determine the Frontal Femoral Component angle (FFC), the Frontal Tibial Component angle (FTC), the Hip-Knee-Ankle angle (HKA) and the sagittal orientation (slope) of both tibial and femoral component. The number and percentage of outliners for each parameter was determined. In addition the percentage of patients from each group with all 5 parameters within the desired range was calculated. Furthermore at the latest follow-up the 2 groups were clinically assessed using KSS and Functional score. RESULTS. At the last assessments there were no differences in the clinical outcome. The mean surgical time was longer in the navigated group of a mean of 5.9 minutes without any statistical differences in complications. The mechanical axis, tibial slope the FTC angle were significantly better aligned in the navigated group. A statistically significant higher number of outliners was seen in the PSI group. The number of implants with all 5 radiological parameters aligned within the desired range was statistically higher in the navigated group. All the implants in the navigated group were correctly aligned in all the planned parameters. DISCUSSION. To our knowledge this is the first prospective study in literature assessing navigation compared to PSI technique in UKR surgery. Despite a slight not significant longer surgical time in the navigated group, at a short follow-up the results could not demonstrate any clinical diffences between the 2 technologies However according to their results the Authors indicate navigation as more helpful in UKR surgery compared to PSI technology in terms of accuracy

There is ongoing debate on the benefits of fixed versus mobile bearing Unicompartmental Knee Replacement (UKR). We report the results from a randomised controlled trial comparing fixed and mobile bearing of the same UKR prosthesis. Forty patients were randomized to receive identical femoral components and either a fixed or mobile bearing tibial component. At 6.5 years follow-up 37% of the mobile bearing design had been revised and 14% for the fixed bearing design. The main reasons for revision were pain and loosening. These results were compared with data from The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) that show a cumulative percent revision of 24.2% for the mobile bearing Preservation UKR at 6.5 years. All locally explanted mobile bearings were examined microscopically, and 83% demonstrated significant backside wear. Constraint on the undersurface of the bearing coupled with a congruent upper surface may have contributed to the excessive revision rate. This is the first randomised controlled trial examining mobile and fixed variations of the same UKR prosthesis and shows this design of UKR with the mobile bearing has an unacceptably high revision rate and patients with this knee design should be closely monitored