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.

Introduction: Hypermobility is a common finding, however, it lacks diagnostic parameters and is poorly understood, especially in the foot.

Aim: To quantify medial column/first ray mobility in patients with midfoot arthritis and planovalgus feet.

Methods: We compared first ray mobility in patients with radiologically defined midfoot tarsometatarsal osteoarthritis, a radiologically normal first ray and planovalgus feet, with control subjects who had normal feet and first rays. An all female group of 20 patients (mean age of 70) and 20 controls (mean age of 53) met the criteria. Analysis of patients’ x-rays identified the site of their arthritis and allowed angular measurements of their flat foot deformity. Patient and control subjects underwent identical examinations, recording hindfoot correctability, medial longitudinal arch appearance, hindfoot prontion and supination, forefoot supination and degrees of flexion/extension and abduction/adduction with an electronic goniometer. Each subject was graded by the AOFAS and SF-36 outcome scores.

Results: There was a significant difference in first ray mobility between the patient and control subjects for all positions adopted (P=< 0.001), except when dorsiflexed and weight bearing (P=0.052). Patients with a neutral non-weight bearing ankle exhibited greatest mobility of 16.8 +/− 4.7 degrees compared to 9.4 +/− 2.6 degrees in controls. This was a significant difference, P=< 0.001, as was the difference between patients adopting the NWB plantarflexed, dorsiflexed and WB neutral positions. P=0.002, P=0.014, P=0.001 respectively. Patients’ median score for 5 out of 8 SF36 domains were considerably less than controls, as were patients’ AOFAS. Reduced physical and social functioning were shown to be linked to poor foot scores.

Conclusion: Patients with planovalgus feet and tarsometatarsal OA have greater first ray mobility than controls with normal feet. Recognising this may help plan orthotic or surgical treatment.