Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a potential treatment
for isolated bone on bone osteoarthritis when limited to a single
compartment. The risk for revision of UKA is three times higher
than for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The aim of this review was
to discuss the different revision options after UKA failure. A search was performed for English language articles published
between 2006 and 2016. After reviewing titles and abstracts, 105
papers were selected for further analysis. Of these, 39 papers were
deemed to contain clinically relevant data to be included in this review.Objectives
Materials and Methods
We analysed data from the Oxford hip and knee questionnaires collected by the New Zealand Joint Registry at six months and five years after joint replacement, to determine if there was any relationship between the scores and the risk of early revision. Logistic regression of the six-month scores indicated that for every one-unit decrease in the Oxford score, the risk of revision within two years increased by 9.7% for total hip replacement (THR), 9.9% for total knee replacement (TKR) and 12.0% for unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). Our findings showed that 70% of the revisions within two years for TKR and 67% for THR and UKR would have been captured by monitoring the lowest 22%, 28% and 28%, respectively, of the Oxford scores. When analysed using the Kalairajah classification a score of <
27 (poor) was associated with a risk of revision within two years of 7.6% for THR, 7.0% for TKR and 24.3% for UKR, compared with risks of 0.7%, 0.7% and 1.8%, respectively, for scores >
34 (good or excellent). Our study confirms that the Oxford hip and knee scores at six months are useful predictors of early revision after THR and TKR and we recommend their use for the monitoring of the outcome and potential failure in these patients.
