Kozinn and Scott have made recommendations about contra-indications for unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). They suggest that patients younger than 60, weight > 82 kilograms, patients with exposed bone in patella-femoral compartment or patients who are physically active/perform heavy labour should not be offered a UKR. In addition, chondrocalcinosis is a contra-indication. These strict selection criteria are based on the experience with fixed bearing UKAs and are more intuitive than evidence based. The Oxford UKR has a fully congruous mobile bearing and has been shown to have minimal wear. Over the past 25 years, the Oxford Group has followed a standardised protocol for patient selection for UKR. We ignore patella-femoral joint pathology, chondrocalcinosis, patient's age, weight and activity level when deciding the suitability for UKR. Using the standardised indications, more than 1100 Oxford UKRs have been performed to date over the last 10 years. These patients are assessed pre-operatively and at regular intervals post-operatively in a dedicated research clinic. We present the results of these consecutive cases. Patients were classified into two groups: group I (satisfy Kozinn-Scott recommendations) and group II (outside recommendations).Introduction
Methods
Before proceeding to longer-term studies, we have studied the early clinical results of a new mobile-bearing total knee prosthesis in comparison with an established fixed-bearing device. Patients requiring bilateral knee replacement consented to have their operations under one anaesthetic using one of each prosthesis. They also agreed to accept the random choice of knee (right or left) and to remain ignorant as to which side had which implant. Outcomes were measured using the American Knee Society Score (AKSS), the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), and determination of the range of movement and pain scores before and at one year after operation. Preoperatively, there was no systematic difference between the right and left knees. One patient died in the perioperative period and one mobile-bearing prosthesis required early revision for dislocation of the meniscal component. At one year the mean AKSS, OKS and pain scores for the new device were slightly better (p <
0.025) than those for the fixed-bearing device. There was no difference in the range of movement. We believe that this is the first controlled, blinded trial to compare early function of a new knee prosthesis with that of a standard implant. It demonstrates a small but significant clinical advantage for the mobile-bearing design.
