Aims. The aim of this study was to describe the pattern of revision indications for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and any change to this pattern for UKA patients over the last 20 years, and to investigate potential associations to changes in surgical practice over time. Methods. All primary knee arthroplasty surgeries performed due to primary osteoarthritis and their revisions reported to the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register from 1997 to 2017 were included. Complex surgeries were excluded. The data was linked to the National Patient Register and the Civil Registration System for comorbidity, mortality, and emigration status. TKAs were propensity score matched 4:1 to UKAs. Revision risks were compared using competing risk Cox proportional hazard regression with a shared γ frailty component. Results. Aseptic loosening (loosening) was the most common revision indication for both UKA (26.7%) and TKA (29.5%). Pain and disease progression accounted for 54.6% of the remaining UKA revisions. Infections and instability accounted for 56.1% of the remaining TKA revision. The incidence of revision due to loosening or pain decreased over the last decade, being the second and third least common indications in 2017. There was a decrease associated with fixation method for pain (hazard ratio (HR) 0.40; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.94) and loosening (HR 0.29; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.81) for cementless compared to cemented, and units UKA usage for pain (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.91), and loosening (HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.70) for high usage. Conclusion. The overall revision patterns for UKA and TKA for the last 20 years are comparable to previous published patterns. We found large changes to UKA revision patterns in the last decade, and with the current surgical practice, revision due to pain or loosening are significantly less likely. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(12):923–931

Aims

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

Aims. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is the preferred treatment for anterior medial knee osteoarthritis (OA) owing to the rapid postoperative recovery. However, the risk factors for UKA failure remain controversial. Methods. The clinical data of Oxford mobile-bearing UKAs performed between 2011 and 2017 with a minimum follow-up of five years were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic, surgical, and follow-up data were collected. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify the risk factors that contribute to UKA failure. Kaplan-Meier survival was used to compare the effect of the prosthesis position on UKA survival. Results. A total of 407 patients who underwent UKA were included in the study. The mean age of patients was 61.8 years, and the mean follow-up period of the patients was 91.7 months. The mean Knee Society Score (KSS) preoperatively and at the last follow-up were 64.2 and 89.7, respectively (p = 0.001). Overall, 28 patients (6.9%) with UKA underwent revision due to prosthesis loosening (16 patients), dislocation (eight patients), and persistent pain (four patients). Cox proportional hazards model analysis identified malposition of the prostheses as a high-risk factor for UKA failure (p = 0.007). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that the five-year survival rate of the group with malposition was 85.1%, which was significantly lower than that of the group with normal position (96.2%; p < 0.001). Conclusion. UKA constitutes an effective method for treating anteromedial knee OA, with an excellent five-year survival rate. Aseptic loosening caused by prosthesis malposition was identified as the main cause of UKA failure. Surgeons should pay close attention to prevent the potential occurrence of this problem. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(12):914–922

Aims. Robotic arm-assisted surgery offers accurate and reproducible guidance in component positioning and assessment of soft-tissue tensioning during knee arthroplasty, but the feasibility and early outcomes when using this technology for revision surgery remain unknown. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of robotic arm-assisted revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) versus primary robotic arm-assisted TKA at short-term follow-up. Methods. This prospective study included 16 patients undergoing robotic arm-assisted revision of UKA to TKA versus 35 matched patients receiving robotic arm-assisted primary TKA. In all study patients, the following data were recorded: operating time, polyethylene liner size, change in haemoglobin concentration (g/dl), length of inpatient stay, postoperative complications, and hip-knee-ankle (HKA) alignment. All procedures were performed using the principles of functional alignment. At most recent follow-up, range of motion (ROM), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), and Oxford Knee Score (OKS) were collected. Mean follow-up time was 21 months (6 to 36). Results. There were no differences between the two treatment groups with regard to mean change in haemoglobin concentration (p = 0.477), length of stay (LOS, p = 0.172), mean polyethylene thickness (p = 0.065), or postoperative complication rates (p = 0.295). At the most recent follow-up, the primary robotic arm-assisted TKA group had a statistically significantly improved OKS compared with the revision UKA to TKA group (44.6 (SD 2.7) vs 42.3 (SD 2.5); p = 0.004) but there was no difference in the overall ROM (p = 0.056) or FJS between the two treatment groups (86.1 (SD 9.6) vs 84.1 (4.9); p = 0.439). Conclusion. Robotic arm-assisted revision of UKA to TKA was associated with comparable intraoperative blood loss, early postoperative rehabilitation, functional outcomes, and complications to primary robotic TKA at short-term follow-up. Robotic arm-assisted surgery offers a safe and reproducible technique for revising failed UKA to TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(7):680–687

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

Aims. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has higher revision rates than total knee arthroplasty (TKA). As revision of UKA may be less technically demanding than revision TKA, UKA patients with poor functional outcomes may be more likely to be offered revision than TKA patients with similar outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare clinical thresholds for revisions between TKA and UKA using revision incidence and patient-reported outcomes, in a large, matched cohort at early, mid-, and late-term follow-up. Methods. Analyses were performed on propensity score-matched patient cohorts of TKAs and UKAs (2:1) registered in the New Zealand Joint Registry between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 2019 with an Oxford Knee Score (OKS) response at six months (n, TKA: 16,774; UKA: 8,387), five years (TKA: 6,718; UKA: 3,359), or ten years (TKA: 3,486; UKA: 1,743). Associations between OKS and revision within two years following the score were examined. Thresholds were compared using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Reasons for aseptic revision were compared using cumulative incidence with competing risk. Results. Fewer TKA patients with ‘poor’ outcomes (≤ 25) subsequently underwent revision compared with UKA at six months (5.1% vs 19.6%; p < 0.001), five years (4.3% vs 12.5%; p < 0.001), and ten years (6.4% vs 15.0%; p = 0.024). Compared with TKA, the relative risk for UKA was 2.5-times higher for ‘unknown’ reasons, bearing dislocations, and disease progression. Conclusion. Compared with TKA, more UKA patients with poor outcomes underwent revision from early to long-term follow-up, and were more likely to undergo revision for ‘unknown’ reasons, which suggest a lower clinical threshold for UKA. For UKA, revision risk was higher for bearing dislocations and disease progression. There is supporting evidence that the higher revision UKA rates are associated with lower clinical thresholds for revision and additional modes of failure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(3):269–276

Aims. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has a higher risk of revision than total knee arthroplasty (TKA), particularly for younger patients. The outcome of knee arthroplasty is typically defined as implant survival or revision incidence after a defined number of years. This can be difficult for patients to conceptualize. We aimed to calculate the ‘lifetime risk’ of revision for UKA as a more meaningful estimate of risk projection over a patient’s remaining lifetime, and to compare this to TKA. Methods. Incidence of revision and mortality for all primary UKAs performed from 1999 to 2019 (n = 13,481) was obtained from the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR). Lifetime risk of revision was calculated for patients and stratified by age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade. Results. The lifetime risk of revision was highest in the youngest age group (46 to 50 years; 40.4%) and decreased sequentially to the oldest (86 to 90 years; 3.7%). Across all age groups, lifetime risk of revision was higher for females (ranging from 4.3% to 43.4% vs males 2.9% to 37.4%) and patients with a higher ASA grade (ASA 3 to 4, ranging from 8.8% to 41.2% vs ASA 1 1.8% to 29.8%). The lifetime risk of revision for UKA was double that of TKA across all age groups (ranging from 3.7% to 40.4% for UKA, and 1.6% to 22.4% for TKA). The higher risk of revision in younger patients was associated with aseptic loosening in both sexes and pain in females. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) accounted for 4% of all UKA revisions, in contrast with 27% for TKA; the risk of PJI was higher for males than females for both procedures. Conclusion. Lifetime risk of revision may be a more meaningful measure of arthroplasty outcomes than implant survival at defined time periods. This study highlights the higher lifetime risk of UKA revision for younger patients, females, and those with a higher ASA grade, which can aid with patient counselling prior to UKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(6):672–679

Aims. This systematic review aims to compare the precision of component positioning, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), complications, survivorship, cost-effectiveness, and learning curves of MAKO robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (RAUKA) with manual medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (mUKA). Methods. Searches of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar were performed in November 2021 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-­Analysis statement. Search terms included “robotic”, “unicompartmental”, “knee”, and “arthroplasty”. Published clinical research articles reporting the learning curves and cost-effectiveness of MAKO RAUKA, and those comparing the component precision, functional outcomes, survivorship, or complications with mUKA, were included for analysis. Results. A total of 179 articles were identified from initial screening, of which 14 articles satisfied the inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. The papers analyzed include one on learning curve, five on implant positioning, six on functional outcomes, five on complications, six on survivorship, and three on cost. The learning curve was six cases for operating time and zero for precision. There was consistent evidence of more precise implant positioning with MAKO RAUKA. Meta-analysis demonstrated lower overall complication rates associated with MAKO RAUKA (OR 2.18 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 4.49); p = 0.040) but no difference in re-intervention, infection, Knee Society Score (KSS; mean difference 1.64 (95% CI -3.00 to 6.27); p = 0.490), or Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score (mean difference -0.58 (95% CI -3.55 to 2.38); p = 0.700). MAKO RAUKA was shown to be a cost-effective procedure, but this was directly related to volume. Conclusion. MAKO RAUKA was associated with improved precision of component positioning but was not associated with improved PROMs using the KSS and WOMAC scores. Future longer-term studies should report functional outcomes, potentially using scores with minimal ceiling effects and survival to assess whether the improved precision of MAKO RAUKA results in better outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(5):541–548

Aims. The aim of this study was to conduct a cross-sectional, observational cohort study of patients presenting for revision of a total hip, or total or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, to understand current routes to revision surgery and explore differences in symptoms, healthcare use, reason for revision, and the revision surgery (surgical time, components, length of stay) between patients having regular follow-up and those without. Methods. Data were collected from participants and medical records for the 12 months prior to revision. Patients with previous revision, metal-on-metal articulations, or hip hemiarthroplasty were excluded. Participants were retrospectively classified as ‘Planned’ or ‘Unplanned’ revision. Multilevel regression and propensity score matching were used to compare the two groups. Results. Data were analyzed from 568 patients, recruited in 38 UK secondary care sites between October 2017 and October 2018 (43.5% male; mean (SD) age 71.86 years (9.93); 305 hips, 263 knees). No significant inclusion differences were identified between the two groups. For hip revision, time to revision > ten years (odds ratio (OR) 3.804, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.353 to 10.694), p = 0.011), periprosthetic fracture (OR 20.309, 95% CI (4.574 to 90.179), p < 0.001), and dislocation (OR 12.953, 95% CI (4.014 to 41.794), p < 0.001), were associated with unplanned revision. For knee, there were no associations with route to revision. Revision after ten years was more likely for those who were younger at primary surgery, regardless of route to revision. No significant differences in cost outcomes, length of surgery time, and access to a health professional in the year prior to revision were found between the two groups. When periprosthetic fractures, dislocations, and infections were excluded, healthcare use was significantly higher in the unplanned revision group. Conclusion. Differences between characteristics for patients presenting for planned and unplanned revision are minimal. Although there was greater healthcare use in those having unplanned revision, it appears unlikely that routine orthopaedic review would have detected many of these issues. It may be safe to disinvest in standard follow-up provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):59–67

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

Aims. The primary aim of the study was to perform an analysis to identify the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (rUKA) relative to manual total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) for patients with isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. Secondary aims were to assess how case volume and length of hospital stay influenced the relative cost per QALY. Patients and Methods. A Markov decision analysis was performed, using known parameters for costs, outcomes, implant survival, and mortality, to assess the cost-effectiveness of rUKA relative to manual TKA and UKA for patients with isolated medial compartment OA of the knee with a mean age of 65 years. The influence of case volume and shorter hospital stay were assessed. Results. Using a model with an annual case volume of 100 patients, the cost per QALY of rUKA was £1395 and £1170 relative to TKA and UKA, respectively. The cost per QALY was influenced by case volume: a low-volume centre performing ten cases per year would achieve a cost per QALY of £7170 and £8604 relative to TKA and UKA. For a high-volume centre performing 200 rUKAs per year with a mean two-day length of stay, the cost per QALY would be £648; if performed as day-cases, the cost would be reduced to £364 relative to TKA. For a high-volume centre performing 200 rUKAs per year with a shorter length of stay of one day relative to manual UKA, the cost per QALY would be £574. Conclusion . rUKA is a cost-effective alternative to manual TKA and UKA for patients with isolated medial compartment OA of the knee. The cost per QALY of rUKA decreased with reducing length of hospital stay and with increasing case volume, compared with TKA and UKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1063–1070

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

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

Aims. The aim of this prospective multicentre study was to describe trends in length of stay and early complications and readmissions following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) performed at eight different centres in Denmark using a fast-track protocol and to compare the length of stay between centres with high and low utilization of UKA. Methods. We included data from eight dedicated fast-track centres, all reporting UKAs to the same database, between 2010 and 2018. Complete ( > 99%) data on length of stay, 90-day readmission, and mortality were obtained during the study period. Specific reasons for a length of stay of > two days, length of stay > four days, and 30- and 90-day readmission were recorded. The use of UKA in the different centres was dichotomized into ≥ 20% versus < 20% of arthroplasties which were undertaken being UKAs, and ≥ 52 UKAs versus < 52 UKAs being undertaken annually. Results. A total of 3,927 procedures were included. Length of stay (mean 1.1 days (SD 1.1), median 1 (IQR 0 to 1)) was unchanged during the study period. The proportion of procedures with a length of stay > two days was also largely unchanged during this time. The percentage of patients discharged on the day of surgery varied greatly between centres (0% to 50% (0 to 481)), with centres with high UKA utilization (both usage and volume) having a larger proportion of same-day discharges. The 30- and 90-day readmissions were 166 (4.2%) and 272 (6.9%), respectively; the 90-day mortality was 0.08% (n = 3). Conclusion. Our findings suggest general underutilization of the potential for quicker recovery following UKA in a fast-track setup. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1167–1175

Aims. To report mid- to long-term results of Oxford mobile bearing domed lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), and determine the effect of potential contraindications on outcome. Methods. A total of 325 consecutive domed lateral UKAs undertaken for the recommended indications were included, and their functional and survival outcomes were assessed. The effects of age, weight, activity, and the presence of full-thickness erosions of cartilage in the patellofemoral joint on outcome were evaluated. Results. Median follow-up was seven years (3 to 14), and mean age at surgery was 65 years (39 to 90). Median Oxford Knee Score (OKS) was 43 (interquartile range (IQR) 37 to 47), with 260 (80%) achieving a good or excellent score (OKS > 34). Revisions occurred in 34 (10%); 14 (4%) were for dislocation, of which 12 had no recurrence following insertion of a new bearing, and 12 (4%) were revised for medial osteoarthritis (OA). Ten-year survival was 85% (95% confidence interval (CI) 79 to 90, at risk 72). Age, weight, activity, and patellofemoral erosions did not have a significant effect on the clinical outcome or survival. Conclusion. Domed lateral UKA provides a good alternative to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in the management of lateral compartment OA. Although dislocation is relatively easy to treat successfully, the dislocation rate of 4% is high. It is recommended that the stability of the bearing is assessed intraoperatively. If the bearing can easily be displaced, the fixed rather than the mobile bearing version of the Oxford lateral tibial component should be inserted instead. Younger age, heavier weight, high activity, and patellofemoral erosions did not detrimentally affect outcome, so should not be considered contraindications. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(8):1033–1040

Aims. Higher osteoblastic bone activity is expected in aseptic loosening and painful unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). However, insights into normal bone activity patterns after medial UKAs are lacking. The aim of this study was to identify the evolution in bone activity pattern in well-functioning medial mobile-bearing UKAs. Methods. In total, 34 patients (13 female, 21 male; mean age 62 years (41 to 79); BMI 29.7 kg/m. 2. (23.6 to 42.1)) with 38 medial Oxford partial UKAs (20 left, 18 right; 19 cementless, 14 cemented, and five hybrid) were prospectively followed with sequential 99mTc-hydroxymethane diphosphonate single photon emission CT (SPECT)/CT preoperatively, and at one and two years postoperatively. Changes in mean osteoblastic activity were investigated using a tracer localization scheme with volumes of interest (VOIs), reported by normalized mean tracer values. A SPECT/CT registration platform additionally explored cortical tracer evolution in zones of interest identified by previous experimental research. Results. Significant reduction of tracer activity from the preoperative situation was found in femoral and anteromedial tibial VOIs adjacent to the UKA components. Temporarily increased osteoblastic bone activity was observed in VOIs comprising the UKA keel structure at one year postoperatively compared to the preoperative activity. Persistent higher tracer uptake was found in the posterior tibial cortex at final follow-up. Multivariate analysis showed no statistical difference in osteoblastic bone activity underneath cemented or cementless components. Conclusion. Well-functioning medial mobile-bearing UKAs showed distinct changes in patterns of normalized bone tracer activity in the different VOIs adjacent to the prosthetic components, regardless of their type of fixation. Compared to the preoperative situation, persistent high bone activity was found underneath the keel and the posterior tibial cortex at final follow-up, with significant reduced activity only being identified in femoral and anteromedial tibial VOIs. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):34–44

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

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

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

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