Endoprosthetic replacement (EPR) is an available option for the management of massive bone loss around failed knee implants. The aim of this study was to determine the results of knee EPRs performed for non-tumour indications. Since 2007, 85 EPRs were performed for in a single tertiary centre by seven surgeons. Mean age at surgery was 73.5 years (range:35–95) with infection as the most common indication (49%), followed by aseptic loosening (18%), complex primary replacement (16%), fracture (15%) and mechanical failure (2%). Mean follow up was 4 years (range:1–9). Functional outcome was determined using the Oxford Knee Score (OKS). At follow-up, 21 patients were deceased and 2 lost to follow-up. Complication rate was 19%. Of the 7 infected cases, 6 were treated with DAIR (debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention) and one underwent above knee amputation. Four of the patients undergoing DAIR were cleared of infection and 2 are on long-term antibiotics. Accounting for implant revision, loss to follow-up and those on long-term antibiotics as failures, 5-year survival was 89% with an average OKS of 25 (SD=10). This mid-term study shows that distal femur EPR is a valuable option for the increasing burden of complex revision knee 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.

Achieving a primary outcome with revision UKR is possible but it depends on an understanding of the main failure modes and avoiding the obvious pitfalls. The most common failure mode in the long term is lateral compartment progression at 2.5% at 28 years. The most common failure overall is misdiagnosis of a painful radiolucency leading to unnecessary revision.

There are a number of potential pitfalls:

Do not revise for unexplained pain. 75% of patients will go on to fail because of continuing pain. A distinction must be made to differentiate between a physiological radiolucency (with a narrow lucency accompanied by a sclerotic margin which is normal) and a pathological radiolucency (with a poorly defined lucency without surrounding sclerotic margin which is indicative of loosening and/or infection)

Femoral loosening can present with subtle findings. Flexion/extension views are helpful to diagnose this problem.

Wear can be a problem with fixed bearing in the second decade and can present with subtle findings. Infection can present with contralateral compartment joint space narrowing.

The approach and exposure is usually straightforward and component removal is generally easy. Tibial resection is undertaken referenced from the normal lateral condyle removing 10mm of bone. Femoral preparation is generally straightforward but care must be taken to dial in correct rotation in the absence of the posterior medial condyle which was resected in the first operation. Generally a CR or PS primary implant is used with 2–4mm extra polyethylene thickness than is used in primary case.

Revision for infection and stress fracture led to difficult revisions where revision components are usually required.

The results for Revision UKR approach those of a primary procedure in all cases except revision for unexplained pain, infection and a stress fracture.

Unicompartmental Knee Replacement (UKR) is associated with fewer complications, faster recovery and better function than Total Knee Replacement (TKR). However, joint registries demonstrate a higher revision rate in UKR, limiting its use. Currently most UKRs are cemented and performed using a minimally invasive technique. In joint registries, common reasons for revision include aseptic loosening and pain. These problems could potentially be addressed by using cementless implants, which may provide more reliable fixation.

The objectives of this study were to compare the quality of fixation (determined by the incidence and appearance of radiolucencies), and clinical outcomes of cemented and cementless UKR at five years.

A randomised controlled trial was established with 63 knees (62 patients) randomised to either cemented (32 patients) or cementless UKR (30 patients). Fixation was assessed with fluoroscopic radiographs aligned to the bone-implant interface at one and five years. Outcome scores were collected pre-operatively and at one, two and five years, including Oxford Knee Score (OKS), American Knee Society Score, objective and functional (AKSS-O/F) and Tegner Activity Scale (TAS), expressed as absolute scores and 0–5 year change (δ) scores.

Four patients died during the study period. There were no revisions. Mean operative time was 11 minutes shorter in the cementless group (p=0.029). At five years, there was no significant difference in any outcome measure except AKSS-F and δAKSS-F which were significantly better in the cementless group (both p=0.003). There were no femoral radiolucencies in either group. There were significantly more tibial radiolucencies in the cemented group (20/30 vs 2/27, p< 0.001). There were nine complete radiolucencies in the cemented group and none in the cementless group (p< 0.001).

Cementless fixation provides improved fixation at five years compared to cemented fixation in UKR, maintaining equivalent or superior clinical outcomes with a shorter operative time and no increase in complications.

Indications for Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty (UKA) vary between units. Some authors have suggested, and many surgeons believe, that medial UKA should only be performed in patients who localise their pain to the medial joint line. This is despite research showing a poor correlation between patient-reported location of pain and radiological or operative findings in osteoarthritis. The aim of this study is to determine the effect of patient-reported pre-operative pain location and functional outcome of UKA at one and five years.

Pre-operative pain location data were collected for 406 knees (380 patients) undergoing Oxford medial UKA. Oxford Knee Score, American Knee Society Scores and Tegner activity scale were recorded preoperatively and at follow-up. 272/406 (67%) had pure medial pain, 25/406 (6%) had pure anterior knee pain and 109/406 (27%) had mixed or generalised pain. None had pure lateral pain. The primary outcome interval is one year; 132/406 patients had attained five years by the time of analysis and their five year data is presented.

At one and five years, each group had improved significantly by each measure (mean δOKS 15.6 (SD 8.9) at year one, 16.3 (9.3) at year five). There was no difference between the groups, nor between patients with and without anterior knee pain or isolated medial pain.

We have found no correlation between preoperative pain location and outcome. We conclude that localised medial pain should not be a prerequisite to UKA and that it may be performed in patients with generalised or anterior knee pain.