To assess the incidence of radiological lateral osteoarthritis (OA) at 15 years after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and assess the relationship of lateral OA with symptoms and patient characteristics. Cemented Phase 3 medial Oxford UKA implanted by two surgeons since 1998 for the recommended indications were prospectively followed. A 15-year cumulative revision rate for lateral OA of 5% for this series was previously reported. A total of 163 unrevised knees with 15-year (SD 1) anterior-posterior knee radiographs were studied. Lateral joint space width (JSWL) was measured and severity of lateral OA was classified as: nil/mild, moderate, and severe. Preoperative and 15-year Oxford Knee Scores (OKS) and American Knee Society Scores were determined. The effect of age, sex, BMI, and intraoperative findings was analyzed. Statistical analysis included one-way analysis of variance and Kruskal-Wallis H test, with significance set at 5%.Aims
Methods
There are advantages and disadvantages of Unicompartmental (UKR) and Total Knee Replacement, with UKR having better functional outcomes with fewer complications but a higher revision rate. The relative merits depend on patient characteristics. The aim was to compare UKR and TKR risk-benefits and cost-effectiveness in patients with severe systemic morbidity. Data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland was linked to hospital inpatient and patient-reported outcomes data. Patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade ≥3 undergoing UKR or TKR were identified. Propensity score stratification was used to compare 90-day complications and 5-year revision and mortality of 2,256 UKR and 57,682 TKR, and in a subset of 145 UKR and 23,344 TKR Oxford Knee Scores (OKS). A health-economic analysis was based on EQ-5D and NHS hospital costs.Background
Methods
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. A total of 325 consecutive domed lateral UKAs undertaken for the recommended indications were included, and their functional and survival outcomes were assessed. The effects of age, weight, activity, and presence of full- thickness erosions of cartilage in the patellofemoral joint on outcome were evaluated.Background
Method
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. A total of 325 consecutive domed lateral UKAs undertaken for the recommended indications were included, and their functional and survival outcomes were assessed. The effects of age, weight, activity, and the presence of full-thickness erosions of cartilage in the patellofemoral joint on outcome were evaluated.Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to determine the polyethylene wear rate of Phase 3 Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacement bearings and to investigate the effects of resin type and manufacturing process. A total of 63 patients with at least ten years’ follow-up with three bearing types (1900 resin machined, 1050 resin machined, and 1050 resin moulded) were recruited. Patients underwent full weight-bearing model-based radiostereometric analysis to determine the bearing thickness. The linear wear rate was estimated from the change in thickness divided by the duration of implantation.Objectives
Methods
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. 263 Cemented and 266 Cementless UKR of identical design, implanted by four high volume surgeons for the same indications, were reviewed by independent physiotherapists at five years. Revision, re-operation, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), American Knee Society score (AKSS) and EQ-5D were assessed. Two pain specific scores were also used: Pain Detect (PD) and Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain (ICOAP). The pain scores were normalised onto a scale of 0 to 100 with 100 being the best. The cemented cohort was mainly implanted before the cementless, although there was considerable overlap. To explore whether differences were due to progressive improvement in surgical practice with time each cohort was divided into early and late subgroups.Introduction
Methods
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. We performed a retrospective observational study using NJR data on 30,814 cemented and 9,708 cementless mobile bearing UKR implanted between 2004 and 2016. Logistic regression was utilised to calculate propensity scores allowing for matching of cemented and cementless groups for various patient, implant and surgical confounders, including surgeon's caseload, using a one to one ratio. 14,814 UKRs (7407 cemented and 7407 cementless) were propensity score matched. Outcomes studied were revision, defined as removal, addition or exchange of a component, and reasons for revision. Implant survival was compared using Cox regression models and groups were stratified according to surgeon caseload.Introduction
Methods
Although we know that smoking damages health, we do not know impact of smoking on a patient's outcome following primary knee arthroplasty (KA). In the UK, clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) have the authority (& funds) to commission healthcare services for their communities. Over the past decade, an increasing number of CCGs are using smoking as a contraindication for patients with end-stage symptomatic knee arthritis being referred to a specialist for due consideration of KA without any clear evidence of the associated risks & benefits. The overall objective of this study is to compare clinical outcomes after knee arthroplasty surgery in smokers, ex-smokers & non-smokers. We obtained data from the UK Clinical Research Practice Datalink (CPRD) that contains information on over 11 million patients (7% of the UK population) registered at over 600 general practices. CPRD data was linked to Hospital Episode Statistics, hospital admissions & Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) data. We collected data on all KAs (n=64,071) performed over a 21-year period (1995 to 2016). Outcomes assessed included: local & systemic complications (at 6-months post-surgery): infections (wound, respiratory, urinary), heart attack, stroke & transient ischaemic attack, venous thromboembolism, hospital readmissions & GP visits (1-year), analgesic use (1-year), surgical revision (up to 20-years), mortality (90-days and 1-year), & 6-month change from pre-operative scores in Oxford Knee Score (OKS). Regression modelling is used to describe the association of smoking on outcomes, adjusting for confounding factors.Introduction
Methods
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) offers significant advantages over total knee arthroplasty (TKA) but is reported to have higher revision rates in joint registries. In both the New Zealand and the UK national registry the revision rate of cementless UKR is less than cementless. It is not clear whether this is because the cementless is better or because more experienced surgeons, who tend to get better results are using cementless. We aim to use registry data to compare cemented and cementless UKA outcomes, matching for surgical experience and other factors. We performed a retrospective observational study using National Joint Registry (NJR) data on 10,836 propensity matched Oxford UKAs (5418 cemented and 5418 cementless) between 2004 and 2015. Logistic regression was utilized to calculate propensity scores to match the cemented and cementless groups for multiple confounders using a one to one ratio. Standardised mean differences were used before and after matching to assess for any covariate imbalances. The outcomes studied were implant survival, reasons for revision and patient survival. The endpoint for implant survival was revision surgery (any component removal or exchange). Cumulative patient and implant survival rates were determined using the Kaplan-Meier method. Patients not undergoing revision or death were censored on the study end date. The study endpoints implant and patient survival were compared between cemented and cementless groups using Cox regression models with a robust variance estimator.Introduction
Methods
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). A novel cross-sectional study was designed. Revised medial meniscal bearing UKR with primary operation registered with the NJR between 2006 and 2010 were identified. Participating centres from all over the country provided blinded pre-operative, post-operative, and pre-revision radiographs. Two observers reviewed the radiographs.Introduction
Methods
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). Six cementless OUKR tibial components were implanted in 12 new slots prepared on blocks of solid polyurethane foam (20 pounds per cubic foot (PCF), Sawbones, Malmo, Sweden) with a range of interference of 0.1 mm to 1.9 mm using a Dartec materials testing machine HC10 (Zwick Ltd, Herefordshire, United Kingdom) . The experiment was repeated with cellular polyurethane foam (15 PCF), which is a more porous analogue for trabecular bone.Objectives
Materials and Methods
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. We assessed the ten-year functional outcomes and 15-year implant
survival of 805 knees (677 patients) following medial mobile-bearing
UKA. The intra-operative status of the PFJ was documented and, with
the exception of bone loss with grooving to the lateral side, neither
the clinical or radiological state of the PFJ nor the presence of
anterior knee pain were considered a contraindication. The impact
of radiographic findings and anterior knee pain was studied in a
subgroup of 100 knees (91 patients).Aims
Patients and Methods
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. Between 2002 and 2014, 94 consecutive UKAs were undertaken in
90 patients with partial thickness cartilage loss and followed up
independently for a mean of six years (1 to 13). These patients
had partial thickness cartilage loss either on both femur and tibia
(13 knees), or on either the femur or the tibia, with full thickness
loss on the other surface of the joint (18 and 63 knees respectively).
Using propensity score analysis, these patients were matched 1:2 based
on age, gender and pre-operative Oxford Knee Score (OKS) with knees
with full thickness loss on both the femur and tibia. The functional
outcomes, implant survival and incidence of re-operations were assessed
at one, two and five years post-operatively. A subgroup of 36 knees
in 36 patients with partial thickness cartilage loss, who had pre-operative
MRI scans, was assessed to identify whether there were any factors
identified on MRI that predicted the outcome.Aims
Patients and Methods
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. Pre-operative radiographs, including stress views, from a consecutive
cohort of 550 knees undergoing arthroplasty (UKA or total knee arthroplasty;
TKA) by a single-surgeon were assessed. Suitability for UKA was
determined using the Decision Aid, with the assessor blinded to
treatment received, and compared with actual treatment received, which
was determined by an experienced UKA surgeon based on history, examination,
radiographic assessment including stress radiographs, and intra-operative
assessment in line with the recommended indications as described
in the literature.Aims
Patients and Methods
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
( 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:
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has
advantages over total knee arthroplasty but national joint registries report
a significantly higher revision rate for UKA. As a result, most
surgeons are highly selective, offering UKA only to a small proportion
(up to 5%) of patients requiring arthroplasty of the knee, and consequently
performing few each year. However, surgeons with large UKA practices
have the lowest rates of revision. The overall size of the practice
is often beyond the surgeon’s control, therefore case volume may
only be increased by broadening the indications for surgery, and
offering UKA to a greater proportion of patients requiring arthroplasty
of the knee. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal UKA usage
(defined as the percentage of knee arthroplasty practice comprised
by UKA) to minimise the rate of revision in a sample of 41 986 records
from the for National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR). UKA usage has a complex, non-linear relationship with the rate
of revision. Acceptable results are achieved with the use of 20%
or more. Optimal results are achieved with usage between 40% and
60%. Surgeons with the lowest usage (up to 5%) have the highest
rates of revision. With optimal usage, using the most commonly used
implant, five-year survival is 96% (95% confidence interval (CI)
94.9 to 96.0), compared with 90% (95% CI 88.4 to 91.6) with low
usage (5%) previously considered ideal. The rate of revision of UKA is highest with low usage, implying
the use of narrow, and perhaps inappropriate, indications. The widespread
use of broad indications, using appropriate implants, would give
patients the advantages of UKA, without the high rate of revision. Cite this article:
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:
Whether to use total or unicompartmental knee
replacement (TKA/UKA) for end-stage knee osteoarthritis remains controversial.
Although UKA results in a faster recovery, lower rates of morbidity
and mortality and fewer complications, the long-term revision rate
is substantially higher than that for TKA. The effect of each intervention on
patient-reported outcome remains unclear. The aim of this study
was to determine whether six-month patient-reported outcome measures
(PROMs) are better in patients after TKA or UKA, using data from
a large national joint registry (NJR). We carried out a propensity score-matched cohort study which
compared six-month PROMs after TKA and UKA in patients enrolled
in the NJR for England and Wales, and the English national PROM
collection programme. A total of 3519 UKA patients were matched
to 10 557 TKAs. The mean six-month PROMs favoured UKA: the Oxford Knee Score
was 37.7 (95% confidence interval (CI) 37.4 to 38.0) for UKA and
36.1 (95% CI 35.9 to 36.3) for TKA; the mean EuroQol EQ-5D index
was 0.772 (95% CI 0.764 to 0.780) for UKA and 0.751 (95% CI 0.747
to 0.756) for TKA. UKA patients were more likely to achieve excellent
results (odds ratio (OR) 1.59, 95% CI 1.47 to 1.72, p <
0.001)
and to be highly satisfied (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.39, p <
0.001), and
were less likely to report complications than those who had undergone
TKA. UKA gives better early patient-reported outcomes than TKA; these
differences are most marked for the very best outcomes. Complications
and readmission are more likely after TKA. Although the data presented
reflect the short-term outcome, they suggest that the high revision
rate for UKA may not be because of poorer clinical outcomes. These
factors should inform decision-making in patients eligible for either
procedure. Cite this article:
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 ( 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:
We scanned 25 left knees in healthy human subjects
using MRI. Multiplanar reconstruction software was used to take
measurements of the inferior and posterior facets of the femoral
condyles and the trochlea. A ‘basic circle’ can be defined which, in the sagittal plane,
fits the posterior and inferior facets of the lateral condyle, the
posterior facet of the medial condyle and the floor of the groove
of the trochlea. It also approximately fits both condyles in the
coronal plane (inferior facets) and the axial plane (posterior facets).
The circle fitting the inferior facet of the medial condyle in the
sagittal plane was consistently 35% larger than the other circles
and was termed the ‘medial inferior circle’. There were strong correlations
between the radii of the circles, the relative positions of the
centres of the condyles, the width of the condyles, the total knee
width and skeletal measurements including height. There was poor
correlation between the radii of the circles and the position of
the trochlea relative to the condyles. In summary, the condyles are approximately spherical except for
the inferior facet medially, which has a larger radius in the sagittal
plane. The size and position of the condyles are consistent and
change with the size of the person. However, the position of the
trochlea is variable even though its radius is similar to that of
the condyles. This information has implications for understanding
anterior knee pain and for the design of knee replacements. Cite this article: