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

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.

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

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

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

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