Background

Lateral Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty (UKA) is a recognised treatment option in the management of lateral Osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. Whilst there is extensive evidence on the indications and contraindcations in Medial UKA there is limited evidence on this topic in Lateral UKA. The aim of this study was to assess our experience of mobile lateral UKR and to look specifically at the effect of Contraindications on the outcome.

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.

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.

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.

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).

Objectives

The primary stability of the cementless Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacement (OUKR) relies on interference fit (or press fit). Insufficient interference may cause implant loosening, whilst excessive interference could cause bone damage and fracture.

The aim of this study was to identify the optimal interference fit by measuring the force required to seat the tibial component of the cementless OUKR (push-in force) and the force required to remove the component (pull-out force).

Aims

It is not clear whether anterior knee pain and osteoarthritis (OA) of the patellofemoral joint (PFJ) are contraindications to medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Our aim was to investigate the long-term outcome of a consecutive series of patients, some of whom had anterior knee pain and PFJ OA managed with UKA.

Aims

While medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is indicated for patients with full-thickness cartilage loss, it is occasionally used to treat those with partial-thickness loss. The aim of this study was to investigate the five-year outcomes in a consecutive series of UKAs used in patients with partial thickness cartilage loss in the medial compartment of the knee.

Aims

An evidence-based radiographic Decision Aid for meniscal-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has been developed and this study investigates its performance at an independent centre.

This prospective study reports the 15-year survival and ten-year functional outcome of a consecutive series of 1000 minimally invasive Phase 3 Oxford medial UKAs (818 patients, 393 men, 48%, 425 women, 52%, mean age 66 years; 32 to 88). These were implanted by two surgeons involved with the design of the prosthesis to treat anteromedial osteoarthritis and spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee, which are recommended indications. Patients were prospectively identified and followed up independently for a mean of 10.3 years (5.3 to 16.6).

At ten years, the mean Oxford Knee Score was 40 (standard deviation (sd) 9; 2 to 48): 79% of knees (349) had an excellent or good outcome. There were 52 implant-related re-operations at a mean of 5.5 years (0.2 to 14.7). The most common reasons for re-operation were arthritis in the lateral compartment (2.5%, 25 knees), bearing dislocation (0.7%, seven knees) and unexplained pain (0.7%, seven knees). When all implant-related re-operations were considered as failures, the ten-year rate of survival was 94% (95% confidence interval (CI) 92 to 96) and the 15-year survival rate 91% (CI 83 to 98). When failure of the implant was the endpoint the 15-year survival was 99% (CI 96 to 100).

This is the only large series of minimally invasive UKAs with 15-year survival data. The results support the continued use of minimally invasive UKA for the recommended indications.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1493–99.

There is a large amount of evidence available about the relative merits of unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty (UKA and TKA). Based on the same evidence, different people draw different conclusions and as a result, there is great variability in the usage of UKA.

The revision rate of UKA is much higher than TKA and so some surgeons conclude that UKA should not be performed. Other surgeons believe that the main reason for the high revision rate is that UKA is easy to revise and, therefore, the threshold for revision is low. They also believe that UKA has many advantages over TKA such as a faster recovery, lower morbidity and mortality and better function. They therefore conclude that UKA should be undertaken whenever appropriate.

The solution to this argument is to minimise the revision rate of UKA, thereby addressing the main disadvantage of UKA. The evidence suggests that this will be achieved if surgeons use UKA for at least 20% of their knee arthroplasties and use implants that are appropriate for these broad indications.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B(10 Suppl A):3–8.

The most common reasons for revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) are loosening and pain. Cementless components may reduce the revision rate. The aim of this study was to compare the fixation and clinical outcome of cementless and cemented Oxford UKAs.

A total of 43 patients were randomised to receive either a cemented or a cementless Oxford UKA and were followed for two years with radiostereometric analysis (RSA), radiographs aligned with the bone–implant interfaces and clinical scores.

The femoral components migrated significantly during the first year (mean 0.2 mm) but not during the second. There was no significant difference in the extent of migration between cemented and cementless femoral components in either the first or the second year. In the first year the cementless tibial components subsided significantly more than the cemented components (mean 0.28 mm (sd 0.17) vs. 0.09 mm (sd 0.19 mm)). In the second year, although there was a small amount of subsidence (mean 0.05 mm) there was no significant difference (p = 0.92) between cemented and cementless tibial components. There were no femoral radiolucencies. Tibial radiolucencies were narrow (< 1 mm) and were significantly (p = 0.02) less common with cementless (6 of 21) than cemented (13 of 21) components at two years. There were no complete radiolucencies with cementless components, whereas five of 21 (24%) cemented components had complete radiolucencies. The clinical scores at two years were not significantly different (p = 0.20).

As second-year migration is predictive of subsequent loosening, and as radiolucency is suggestive of reduced implant–bone contact, these data suggest that fixation of the cementless components is at least as good as, if not better than, that of cemented devices.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:185–91.

The cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement has been demonstrated to have superior fixation on radiographs and a similar early complication rate compared with the cemented version. However, a small number of cases have come to our attention where, after an apparently successful procedure, the tibial component subsides into a valgus position with an increased posterior slope, before becoming well-fixed. We present the clinical and radiological findings of these six patients and describe their natural history and the likely causes. Two underwent revision in the early post-operative period, and in four the implant stabilised and became well-fixed radiologically with a good functional outcome.

This situation appears to be avoidable by minor modifications to the operative technique, and it appears that it can be treated conservatively in most patients.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:345–9.

Mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee replacements (UKRs) with a flat tibial plateau have not performed well in the lateral compartment, owing to a high dislocation rate. This led to the development of the Domed Lateral Oxford UKR (Domed OUKR) with a biconcave bearing. The aim of this study was to assess the survival and clinical outcomes of the Domed OUKR in a large patient cohort in the medium term.

We prospectively evaluated 265 consecutive knees with isolated disease of the lateral compartment and a mean age at surgery of 64 years (32 to 90). At a mean follow-up of four years (sd 2.2, (0.5 to 8.3)) the mean Oxford knee score was 40 out of 48 (sd 7.4). A total of 12 knees (4.5%) had re-operations, of which four (1.5%) were for dislocation. All dislocations occurred in the first two years. Two (0.8%) were secondary to significant trauma that resulted in ruptured ligaments, and two (0.8%) were spontaneous. In four patients (1.5%) the UKR was converted to a primary TKR. Survival at eight years, with failure defined as any revision, was 92.1% (95% confidence interval 81.3 to 100).

The Domed Lateral OUKR gives good clinical outcomes, low re-operation and revision rates and a low dislocation rate in patients with isolated lateral compartmental disease, in the hands of the designer surgeons.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:59–64.

The Cementless Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacement (OUKR) was developed to address problems related to cementation, and has been demonstrated in a randomised study to have similar clinical outcomes with fewer radiolucencies than observed with the cemented device. However, before its widespread use it is necessary to clarify contraindications and assess the complications. This requires a larger study than any previously published.

We present a prospective multicentre series of 1000 cementless OUKRs in 881 patients at a minimum follow-up of one year. All patients had radiological assessment aligned to the bone–implant interfaces and clinical scores. Analysis was performed at a mean of 38.2 months (19 to 88) following surgery. A total of 17 patients died (comprising 19 knees (1.9%)), none as a result of surgery; there were no tibial or femoral loosenings. A total of 19 knees (1.9%) had significant implant-related complications or required revision. Implant survival at six years was 97.2%, and there was a partial radiolucency at the bone–implant interface in 72 knees (8.9%), with no complete radiolucencies. There was no significant increase in complication rate compared with cemented fixation (p = 0.87), and no specific contraindications to cementless fixation were identified.

Cementless OUKR appears to be safe and reproducible in patients with end-stage anteromedial osteoarthritis of the knee, with radiological evidence of improved fixation compared with previous reports using cemented fixation.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:181–7.

The Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is an established treatment option in the management of symptomatic end-stage medial compartmental osteoarthritis (MCOA), which works well in the young and active patient. However, previous studies have shown that it is reliable only in the presence of a functionally intact anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). This review reports the outcomes, at a mean of five years and a maximum of ten years, of 52 consecutive patients with a mean age of 51 years (36 to 57) who underwent staged or simultaneous ACL reconstruction and Oxford UKR. At the last follow-up (with one patient lost to follow-up), the mean Oxford knee score was 41 (sd 6.3; 17 to 48). Two patients required conversion to TKR: one for progression of lateral compartment osteoarthritis and one for infection. Implant survival at five years was 93% (95% CI 83 to 100). All but one patient reported being satisfied with the procedure. The outcome was not significantly influenced by age, gender, femoral or tibial tunnel placement, or whether the procedure was undertaken at one- or two-stages.

In summary, ACL reconstruction and Oxford UKR gives good results in patients with end-stage MCOA secondary to ACL deficiency.

STUDY PURPOSES

To evaluate the role of “top up” intra-articular local anaesthetic injection in patients who have had UKR.

INTRODUCTION

Mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is an accepted treatment for patients with isolated medial unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis (OA) with a full thickness cartilage loss. The aim of this study was to determine if this recommendation was correct and if the procedure could be used for partial-thickness cartilage loss.

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.

This prospective study describes the outcome of the first 1000 phase 3 Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacements (UKRs) implanted using a minimally invasive surgical approach for the recommended indications by two surgeons and followed up independently. The mean follow-up was 5.6 years (1 to 11) with 547 knees having a minimum follow-up of five years. At five years their mean Oxford knee score was 41.3 (sd 7.2), the mean American Knee Society Objective Score 86.4 (sd 13.4), mean American Knee Society Functional Score 86.1 (sd 16.6), mean Tegner activity score 2.8 (sd 1.1). For the entire cohort, the mean maximum flexion was 130° at the time of final review.

The incidence of implant-related re-operations was 2.9%; of these 29 re-operations two were revisions requiring revision knee replacement components with stems and wedges, 17 were conversions to a primary total knee replacement, six were open reductions for dislocation of the bearing, three were secondary lateral UKRs and one was revision of a tibial component. The most common reason for further surgical intervention was progression of arthritis in the lateral compartment (0.9%), followed by dislocation of the bearing (0.6%) and revision for unexplained pain (0.6%). If all implant-related re-operations are considered failures, the ten-year survival rate was 96% (95% confidence interval, 92.5 to 99.5). If only revisions requiring revision components are considered failures the ten-year survival rate is 99.8% (confidence interval 99 to 100).

This is the largest published series of UKRs implanted through a minimally invasive surgical approach and with ten-year survival data. The survival rates are similar to those obtained with a standard open approach whereas the function is better. This demonstrates the effectiveness and safety of a minimally invasive surgical approach for implanting the Oxford UKR.