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

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).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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