Aims. Robotic arm-assisted surgery offers accurate and reproducible guidance in component positioning and assessment of soft-tissue tensioning during knee arthroplasty, but the feasibility and early outcomes when using this technology for revision surgery remain unknown. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of robotic arm-assisted revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) versus primary robotic arm-assisted TKA at short-term follow-up. Methods. This prospective study included 16 patients undergoing robotic arm-assisted revision of UKA to TKA versus 35 matched patients receiving robotic arm-assisted primary TKA. In all study patients, the following data were recorded: operating time, polyethylene liner size, change in haemoglobin concentration (g/dl), length of inpatient stay, postoperative complications, and hip-knee-ankle (HKA) alignment. All procedures were performed using the principles of functional alignment. At most recent follow-up, range of motion (ROM), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), and Oxford Knee Score (OKS) were collected. Mean follow-up time was 21 months (6 to 36). Results. There were no differences between the two treatment groups with regard to mean change in haemoglobin concentration (p = 0.477), length of stay (LOS, p = 0.172), mean polyethylene thickness (p = 0.065), or postoperative complication rates (p = 0.295). At the most recent follow-up, the primary robotic arm-assisted TKA group had a statistically significantly improved OKS compared with the revision UKA to TKA group (44.6 (SD 2.7) vs 42.3 (SD 2.5); p = 0.004) but there was no difference in the overall ROM (p = 0.056) or FJS between the two treatment groups (86.1 (SD 9.6) vs 84.1 (4.9); p = 0.439). Conclusion. Robotic arm-assisted revision of UKA to TKA was associated with comparable intraoperative blood loss, early postoperative rehabilitation, functional outcomes, and complications to primary robotic TKA at short-term follow-up. Robotic arm-assisted surgery offers a safe and reproducible technique for revising failed UKA to TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(7):680–687

Aims. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has higher revision rates than total knee arthroplasty (TKA). As revision of UKA may be less technically demanding than revision TKA, UKA patients with poor functional outcomes may be more likely to be offered revision than TKA patients with similar outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare clinical thresholds for revisions between TKA and UKA using revision incidence and patient-reported outcomes, in a large, matched cohort at early, mid-, and late-term follow-up. Methods. Analyses were performed on propensity score-matched patient cohorts of TKAs and UKAs (2:1) registered in the New Zealand Joint Registry between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 2019 with an Oxford Knee Score (OKS) response at six months (n, TKA: 16,774; UKA: 8,387), five years (TKA: 6,718; UKA: 3,359), or ten years (TKA: 3,486; UKA: 1,743). Associations between OKS and revision within two years following the score were examined. Thresholds were compared using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Reasons for aseptic revision were compared using cumulative incidence with competing risk. Results. Fewer TKA patients with ‘poor’ outcomes (≤ 25) subsequently underwent revision compared with UKA at six months (5.1% vs 19.6%; p < 0.001), five years (4.3% vs 12.5%; p < 0.001), and ten years (6.4% vs 15.0%; p = 0.024). Compared with TKA, the relative risk for UKA was 2.5-times higher for ‘unknown’ reasons, bearing dislocations, and disease progression. Conclusion. Compared with TKA, more UKA patients with poor outcomes underwent revision from early to long-term follow-up, and were more likely to undergo revision for ‘unknown’ reasons, which suggest a lower clinical threshold for UKA. For UKA, revision risk was higher for bearing dislocations and disease progression. There is supporting evidence that the higher revision UKA rates are associated with lower clinical thresholds for revision and additional modes of failure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(3):269–276

Aims. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has a higher risk of revision than total knee arthroplasty (TKA), particularly for younger patients. The outcome of knee arthroplasty is typically defined as implant survival or revision incidence after a defined number of years. This can be difficult for patients to conceptualize. We aimed to calculate the ‘lifetime risk’ of revision for UKA as a more meaningful estimate of risk projection over a patient’s remaining lifetime, and to compare this to TKA. Methods. Incidence of revision and mortality for all primary UKAs performed from 1999 to 2019 (n = 13,481) was obtained from the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR). Lifetime risk of revision was calculated for patients and stratified by age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade. Results. The lifetime risk of revision was highest in the youngest age group (46 to 50 years; 40.4%) and decreased sequentially to the oldest (86 to 90 years; 3.7%). Across all age groups, lifetime risk of revision was higher for females (ranging from 4.3% to 43.4% vs males 2.9% to 37.4%) and patients with a higher ASA grade (ASA 3 to 4, ranging from 8.8% to 41.2% vs ASA 1 1.8% to 29.8%). The lifetime risk of revision for UKA was double that of TKA across all age groups (ranging from 3.7% to 40.4% for UKA, and 1.6% to 22.4% for TKA). The higher risk of revision in younger patients was associated with aseptic loosening in both sexes and pain in females. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) accounted for 4% of all UKA revisions, in contrast with 27% for TKA; the risk of PJI was higher for males than females for both procedures. Conclusion. Lifetime risk of revision may be a more meaningful measure of arthroplasty outcomes than implant survival at defined time periods. This study highlights the higher lifetime risk of UKA revision for younger patients, females, and those with a higher ASA grade, which can aid with patient counselling prior to UKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(6):672–679

Aims. Little is known about the relative outcomes of revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and high tibial osteotomy (HTO) to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of revision surgery for the two procedures in terms of complications, re-revision and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at a minimum of two years follow-up. Patients and Methods. This study was a retrospective review of data from an institutional arthroplasty registry for cases performed between 2001 and 2014. A total of 292 patients were identified, of which 217 had a revision of HTO to TKA, and 75 had revision of UKA to TKA. While mean follow-up was longer for the HTO group compared with the UKA group, patient demographics (age, body mass index and Charlson co-morbidity index) and PROMs (Short Form-36, Oxford Knee Score, Knee Society Score, both objective and functional) were similar in the two groups prior to revision surgery. Outcomes included the rate of complications and re-operation, PROMS and patient-reported satisfaction at six months and two years post-operatively. We also compared the duration of surgery and the need for revision implants in the two groups. . Results . At two-year follow-up, both groups of patients had made significant improvement in terms of PROMs compared with pre-operative scores. PROMs and satisfaction rates were similar in the two groups. Complications requiring re-operation were significantly more frequent in the HTO group whilst more revision implants were used in the UKA group, resulting in a longer operative duration. . Conclusion. Revision of HTO and UKA achieve similar post-operative PROMs and satisfaction. Revision of UKA more frequently requires revision components with increased operation duration but fewer complications requiring re-operation compared with revision of HTO. . Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1329–34

Aims

In the last decade, perioperative advancements have expanded the use of outpatient primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Despite this, there remains limited data on expedited discharge after revision TKA. This study compared 30-day readmissions and reoperations in patients undergoing revision TKA with a hospital stay greater or less than 24 hours. The authors hypothesized that expedited discharge in select patients would not be associated with increased 30-day readmissions and reoperations.

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

Aims

The aim of this study was to assess factors associated with the estimated lifetime risk of revision surgery after primary knee arthroplasty (KA).

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: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1506–11

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare ten-year longitudinal healthcare costs and revision rates for patients undergoing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Aims

Uncemented mobile bearing designs in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) have seen an increase over the last decade. However, there are a lack of large-scale studies comparing survivorship of these specific designs to commonly used cemented mobile and fixed bearing designs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the survivorship of these designs.

Aims

Ideal component sizing may be difficult to achieve in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Anatomical variants, incremental implant size, and a reduced surgical exposure may lead to over- or under-sizing of the components. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of UKA sizing with robotic-assisted techniques versus a conventional surgical technique.

Aims. It has been hypothesized that a unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is more likely to be revised than a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) because conversion surgery to a primary TKA is a less complicated procedure. The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a lower threshold for revising a UKA compared with TKA based on Oxford Knee Scores (OKSs) and range of movement (ROM) at the time of revision. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed 619 aseptic revision cases performed between December 1998 and October 2018. This included 138 UKAs that underwent conversion to TKA and 481 initial TKA revisions. Age, body mass index (BMI), time in situ, OKS, and ROM were available for all patients. Results. There were no differences between the two groups based on demographics or time to revision. The top reasons for aseptic TKA revision were loosening in 212 (44%), instability in 88 (18%), and wear in 69 (14%). UKA revision diagnoses were primarily for loosening in 50 (36%), progression of osteoarthritis (OA) in 50 (36%), and wear in 17 (12%). Out of a maximum 48 points, the mean OKS of the UKAs before revision was 23 (SD 9.3), which was significantly higher than the TKAs at 19.2 (SD 9.8; p < 0.001). UKA patients scored statistically better on nine of the 12 individual OKS questions. The UKA cases also had a larger pre-revision mean ROM (114°, SD 14.3°) than TKAs (98°, SD 25°) ; p < 0.001). Conclusion. At revision, the mean UKA OKSs and ROM were significantly better than those of TKA cases. This study suggests that at our institution there is a difference in preoperative OKS between UKA and TKA at the time of revision, demonstrating a revision bias. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6 Supple A):91–95

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: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:793–801.

Aims

Our aim was to examine the clinical and radiographic outcomes in 257 consecutive Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (OUKAs) (238 patients), five years post-operatively.

Aims

The aim of this to study was to compare the previously unreported long-term survival outcome of the Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) performed by trainee surgeons and consultants.

We present detailed information about early morbidity after aseptic revision knee replacement from a nationwide study. All aseptic revision knee replacements undertaken between 1st October 2009 and 30th September 2011 were analysed using the Danish National Patient Registry with additional information from the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Registry. The 1218 revisions involving 1165 patients were subdivided into total revisions, large partial revisions, partial revisions and revisions of unicondylar replacements (UKR revisions). The mean age was 65.0 years (27 to 94) and the median length of hospital stay was four days (interquartile range: 3 to 5), with a 90 days re-admission rate of 9.9%, re-operation rate of 3.5% and mortality rate of 0.2%. The age ranges of 51 to 55 years (p = 0.018), 76 to 80 years (p < 0.001) and ≥ 81 years (p < 0.001) were related to an increased risk of re-admission. The age ranges of 76 to 80 years (p = 0.018) and the large partial revision subgroup (p = 0.073) were related to an increased risk of re-operation. The ages from 76 to 80 years (p < 0.001), age ≥ 81 years (p < 0.001) and surgical time > 120 min (p <  0.001) were related to increased length of hospital stay, whereas the use of a tourniquet (p = 0.008) and surgery in a low volume centre (p = 0.013) were related to shorter length of stay.

In conclusion, we found a similar incidence of early post-operative morbidity after aseptic knee revisions as has been reported after primary procedures. This suggests that a length of hospital stay ≤ four days and discharge home at that time is safe following aseptic knee revision surgery in Denmark.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1649–56.

This study reports on the first 150 consecutive Oxford cementless unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKA) performed in an independent centre (126 patients). All eligible patients had functional scores (Oxford knee score and high activity arthroplasty score) recorded pre-operatively and at two- and five-years of follow-up. Fluoroscopically aligned radiographs were taken at five years and analysed for any evidence of radiolucent lines (RLLs), subsidence or loosening. The mean age of the cohort was 63.6 years (39 to 86) with 81 (53.1%) males. Excellent functional scores were maintained at five years and there were no progressive RLLs demonstrated on radiographs. Two patients underwent revision to a total knee arthroplasty giving a revision rate of 0.23/100 (95% confidence interval 0.03 to 0.84) component years with overall component survivorship of 98.7% at five years. There were a further four patients who underwent further surgery on the same knee, two underwent bearing exchanges for dislocation and two underwent lateral UKAs for disease progression. This was a marked improvement from other UKAs reported in New Zealand Joint Registry data and supports the designing centre’s early results.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1358–63.

This randomised trial evaluated the outcome of a single design of unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee (UKA) with either a cemented all-polyethylene or a metal-backed modular tibial component. A total of 63 knees in 45 patients (17 male, 28 female) were included, 27 in the all-polyethylene group and 36 in the metal-backed group. The mean age was 57.9 years (39.6 to 76.9). At a mean follow-up of 6.4 years (5 to 9.9), 11 all-polyethylene components (41%) were revised (at a mean of 5.8 years; 1.4 to 8.0) post-operatively and two metal-backed components were revised (at one and five years). One revision in both groups was for unexplained pain, one in the metal-backed group was for progression of osteoarthritis. The others in the all-polyethylene group were for aseptic loosening. The survivorship at seven years calculated by the Kaplan–Meier method for the all-polyethylene group was 56.5% (95% CI 31.9 to 75.2, number at risk 7) and for the metal-backed group was 93.8% (95% CI 77.3 to 98.4, number at risk 16) This difference was statistically significant (p <  0.001). At the most recent follow-up, significantly better mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index Scores were found in the all-polyethylene group (13.4 vs 23.0, p = 0.03) but there was no difference in the mean Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome scores (68.8; 41.4 to 99.0 vs 62.6; 24.0 to 100.0), p = 0.36). There were no significant differences for range of movement (p = 0.36) or satisfaction (p = 0.23).

This randomised study demonstrates that all-polyethylene components in this design of fixed bearing UKA had unsatisfactory results with significantly higher rates of failure before ten years compared with the metal-back components.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:786–92.

We assessed the outcome of patients who were lost to follow-up after arthroplasty by a single surgeon. The aim was to validate the surgeon’s data set with the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry and determine the outcome of those patients lost to follow-up.

Prospective data on patient demographics, operative details and outcomes of the surgeon’s 1192 primary unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) procedures were analysed. There were 69 knees in patients who were lost to follow-up, among whom the Registry identified 31 deaths and eight revisions.

The cumulative percentage revision (CPR) at seven years using the additional Registry data was 8.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 7 to 11). Using the surgeon’s data, the CPR at seven years was 8% (95% CI 6.3 to 10.1) for the best-case scenario where loss to follow-up was excluded, and 16% (95% CI 13.8 to 19.4) for the worst-case scenario, where all patients lost to follow-up were deemed to have been revised. There was a significantly higher mortality rate in those patients lost to follow-up.

This study demonstrates that a national joint registry can be used by individual surgeons to establish more accurate revision rates in their arthroplasty patients. This is expected to facilitate a more rigorous audit of surgical outcomes by surgeons and lead to more accurate and uniform reporting of the results of arthroplasty in general.