A total of 10474 unicompartmental knee arthroplasties was performed for medial osteoarthritis in Sweden between 1986 and 1995. We sought to establish whether the number of operations performed in an orthopaedic unit affected the incidence of revision. Three different implants were analysed: one with a high revision rate, known to have unfavourable mechanical and design properties; a prosthesis which is technically demanding with a known increased rate of revision; and the most commonly used unicompartmental device.

Most of the units performed relatively few unicompartmental knee arthroplasties per year and there was an association between the mean number carried out and the risk of later revision. The effect of the mean number of operations per year on the risk of revision varied. The technically demanding implant was most affected, that most commonly used less so, and the outcome of the unfavourable design was not influenced by the number of operations performed.

For unicompartmental arthroplasty, the long-term results are related to the number performed by the unit, probably expressing the standards of management in selecting the patients and performing the operation.

A prospective nation-wide study of knee arthroplasty has been under way in Sweden since October 1975. By the end of 1983, 4505 arthroplasties for osteoarthritis and 3495 for rheumatoid arthritis had been recorded and reviewed one, three and six years after the operation. Using actuarial methods, the probability of the prosthesis remaining in situ after six years was calculated. In osteoarthritis this probability ranged from 65% for hinged prostheses to 90% for medial compartment prostheses. Two-and three-compartment prostheses produced intermediate results with 87% survival. In rheumatoid arthritis the probability varied from 72% for medial compartment prostheses to 90% for two- and three-compartment prostheses. The main reason for failure was loosening of the components, the second most common was infection. The probability of revision for infection by six years was 2% in osteoarthritis and 3% in rheumatoid arthritis. Most revisions were to a three-compartment prosthesis. Knee fusion at primary revision was required in 2% of the cases at six years.

Twenty consecutive patients treated by arthrodesis for failed knee arthroplasty are reviewed. Eight hinged, five stabilised and seven compartmental prostheses were removed, for infection (15 cases), loosening (4) and instability (1). One patient refused a second-stage operation but the remainder gained sound fusion. Infected knees had a two-stage procedure with temporary insertion of gentamicin-loaded beads after removal of the prosthesis; all infections healed. Six arthrodeses using a Hoffmann-Vidal external fixator resulted in two temporary failures. One Ace-Fischer external fixation was successful. Of 10 primary attempts at arthrodesis with an intramedullary Kuntscher nail, nine were successful; the tenth fused after two more attempts by the same method. The two failures of external fixation and two failures after Charnley single-frame compression done elsewhere were successfully fused with intramedullary nails. Delayed union in three cases fused after prolonged fixation and repeated bone grafts. The indications for and methods of arthrodesis after failed knee arthroplasty are discussed.