Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has numerous advantages over total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and one disadvantage, the higher revision rate. The best way to minimize the revision rate is for surgeons to use UKA for at least 20% of their knee arthroplasties. To achieve this, they need to learn and apply the appropriate indications and techniques. This would decrease the revision rate and increase the number of UKAs which were implanted, which would save money and patients would benefit from improved outcomes over their lifetime.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:432–5.

We recently published a paper comparing the incidence of adverse outcomes after unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty (UKA and TKA). The conclusion of this study, which was in favour of UKA, was dismissed as “biased” in a review in Bone & Joint 360. Although this study is one of the least biased comparisons of UKA and TKA, this episode highlights the biases that exist both for and against UKA. In this review, we explore the different types of bias, particularly selection, reporting and measurement. We conclude that comparisons between UKA and TKA are open to bias. These biases can be so marked, particularly in comparisons based just on national registry data, that the conclusions can be misleading. For a fair comparison, data from randomised studies or well-matched, prospective observational cohort studies, which include registry data, are required, and multiple outcome measures should be used. The data of this type that already exist suggest that if UKA is used appropriately, compared with TKA, its advantages outweigh its disadvantages.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:12–15.

National registers compare implants by their revision rates, but the validity of the method has never been assessed. The New Zealand Joint Registry publishes clinical outcomes (Oxford knee scores, OKS) alongside revision rates, allowing comparison of the two measurements. In the two types of knee replacement, unicompartmental (UKR) had a better knee score than total replacement (TKR), but the revision rate of the former was nearly three times higher than that of the latter. This was because the sensitivity of the revision rate to clinical failure was different for the two implants. For example, of knees with a very poor outcome (OKS < 20 points), only about 12% of TKRs were revised compared with about 63% of UKRs with similar scores.

Revision therefore is not an objective measurement and should not be used to compare these two types of implant. Furthermore, revision is much less sensitive than the OKS to clinical failure in both types and therefore exaggerates the success of knee replacements, particularly of TKR.

The Oxford hip and knee scores have been extensively used since they were first described in 1996 and 1998. During this time, they have been modified and used for many different purposes. This paper describes how they should be used and seeks to clarify areas of confusion.