New implants for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are frequently introduced with the promise of improved performance. Infrequently there is accompanying data to document relative performance. The goal of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of an implant widely used for decades (Existing TKA), compared to a new implant (New TKA) from the same manufacturer. From October 2011-March 2015, 19 sites prospectively enrolled and implanted 752 Subjects with Existing TKA. Between November 2012 and May 2015, 23 sites (18 sites had enrolled Existing TKAs), implanted 1131 Subjects with the New TKA. Demographics were similar between groups. Subjects were seen preoperatively, <1-year, 1-year, and 2-years to collect patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), radiographs and any complications. PROMs consisted of Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) (permits WOMAC scoring), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Patient's Knee Implant Performance (PKIP) and EQ5D-3L and a p-value of 0.01 was established for statistical significance for PROMs comparisons. Kaplan-Meier (KM) implant survivorship (revision of any component for any reason) estimates were calculated.Introduction
Methods
There is ongoing debate about the possible advantages of unicompartmental (UNI) knee replacement versus total knee replacement (TKR), such as for young, active patients. The purpose of this study was to investigate functional, radiographic, and device survivorship outcomes of UNI knee replacement with a newer generation UNI through 2-years post-op. A retrospective review of 188 cemented, fixed bearing unicompartmental (UNI) knee replacements implanted between January 2009 and June 2012 at 3 centers. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the survivorship, reasons for revision, radiographic and clinical results. A chart review was performed to collect demographics, operative details, American Knee Society (AKS) scores and adverse events (AE) through 2-years post-op. Kaplan-Meier (KM) device survivorship rates for the partial knee construct were estimated for post-op years in which at least 40 subjects had later follow-up. The definition of revision was the removal of any component for any reason, and device survivorship was the lack of revision. The time variable was the time to revision if the knee had been revised, or the time to last clinical follow-up or death if the knee had not been revised. The average follow-up was 2.03 years (SD=0.4). The mean age was 64 years (SD=10.5), 56% of the patients were 65 years or younger, mean BMI was 27.5 kg/m2 (SD=4.9), 60% of patients were women, and 89% had a diagnosis of OA (9.6% had AVN). Data were collected through April 2015.INTRODUCTION
METHODS
We examined 86 polyethylene inserts, retrieved from total and unicompartmental knee prostheses after an average of 39.5 months in situ, grading them from 0 to 3 for seven modes of polyethylene degradation. Severe wear, with delamination or deformation, was observed in 51% of the implants, and was associated with time in situ, lack of congruency, thin polyethylene, third-body wear debris, and heat-pressed polyethylene. Significant under-surface cold flow was identified in some areas of unsupported polyethylene, and was associated with delamination in the load-bearing areas of thin inserts above screw holes in the underlying metal tray. We recommend the use of thicker polyethylene inserts, particularly in young, active patients and in designs with screw holes in the tibial baseplate. Thin polyethylene inserts which are at risk for accelerated wear and premature failure should be monitored radiographically at annual intervals.
