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. To evaluate the influence of discharge timing on 30-day complications following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Patients and Methods. We identified patients aged 18 years or older who underwent TKA between 2005 and 2016 from the American College of Surgeons’ National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. We propensity score-matched length-of-stay (LOS) groups using all relevant covariables. We used multivariable regression to determine if the rate of complications and re-admissions differed depending on LOS. Results. Our matched cohort consisted of 76 246 TKA patients (mean age 67 years . (sd. 9)). Patients whose LOS was zero and four days had an increased risk of major complications by an odds ratio (OR) of 1.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0 to 3.2) and 1.5 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.7), respectively, compared with patients whose LOS was two days. Patients whose LOS was zero, three, and four days had an increased risk of minor complications (OR 1.8 (95% CI 1.3 to 2.7), 1.2 (95% CI 1.0 to 1.4), and 1.6 (95% CI 1.4 to 1.9), respectively), compared with patients whose LOS was two days. In addition, a LOS of three days increased the risk of re-admission by an OR of 1.2 (95% CI 1.0 to 1.3), and a LOS of four days increased the risk of re-admission by an OR of 1.5 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.6), compared with a LOS of two days. Conclusion. Patients discharged on days one to two postoperatively following TKA appear to have reduced major and minor complications compared with discharge on the day of surgery, or on days three to four. Prospective clinical data are required to confirm these findings. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(7 Supple C):70–76

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