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
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. 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.Aims
Methods
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. 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.Aims
Methods
Following arthroplasty of the knee, the patient’s
perception of improvement in symptoms is fundamental to the assessment
of outcome. Better clinical outcome may offset the inferior survival
observed for some types of implant. By examining linked National
Joint Registry (NJR) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)
data, we aimed to compare PROMs collected at a minimum of six months
post-operatively for total (TKR: n = 23 393) and unicondylar knee
replacements (UKR: n = 505). Improvements in knee-specific (Oxford
knee score, OKS) and generic (EuroQol, EQ-5D) scores were compared
and adjusted for case-mix differences using multiple regression.
Whereas the improvements in the OKS and EQ-5D were significantly
greater for TKR than for UKR, once adjustments were made for case-mix
differences and pre-operative score, the improvements in the two
scores were not significantly different. The adjusted mean differences
in the improvement of OKS and EQ-5D were 0.0 (95% confidence interval (CI)
-0.9 to 0.9; p = 0.96) and 0.009 (95% CI -0.034 to 0.015; p = 0.37),
respectively. We found no difference in the improvement of either knee-specific
or general health outcomes between TKR and UKR in a large cohort
of registry patients. With concerns about significantly higher revision
rates for UKR observed in worldwide registries, we question the
widespread use of an arthroplasty that does not confer a significant
benefit in clinical outcome.