Aims

The aim of this study was to determine whether obesity had a detrimental effect on the long-term performance and survival of medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKAs).

Aims. Robotic arm-assisted surgery offers accurate and reproducible guidance in component positioning and assessment of soft-tissue tensioning during knee arthroplasty, but the feasibility and early outcomes when using this technology for revision surgery remain unknown. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of robotic arm-assisted revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) versus primary robotic arm-assisted TKA at short-term follow-up. Methods. This prospective study included 16 patients undergoing robotic arm-assisted revision of UKA to TKA versus 35 matched patients receiving robotic arm-assisted primary TKA. In all study patients, the following data were recorded: operating time, polyethylene liner size, change in haemoglobin concentration (g/dl), length of inpatient stay, postoperative complications, and hip-knee-ankle (HKA) alignment. All procedures were performed using the principles of functional alignment. At most recent follow-up, range of motion (ROM), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), and Oxford Knee Score (OKS) were collected. Mean follow-up time was 21 months (6 to 36). Results. There were no differences between the two treatment groups with regard to mean change in haemoglobin concentration (p = 0.477), length of stay (LOS, p = 0.172), mean polyethylene thickness (p = 0.065), or postoperative complication rates (p = 0.295). At the most recent follow-up, the primary robotic arm-assisted TKA group had a statistically significantly improved OKS compared with the revision UKA to TKA group (44.6 (SD 2.7) vs 42.3 (SD 2.5); p = 0.004) but there was no difference in the overall ROM (p = 0.056) or FJS between the two treatment groups (86.1 (SD 9.6) vs 84.1 (4.9); p = 0.439). Conclusion. Robotic arm-assisted revision of UKA to TKA was associated with comparable intraoperative blood loss, early postoperative rehabilitation, functional outcomes, and complications to primary robotic TKA at short-term follow-up. Robotic arm-assisted surgery offers a safe and reproducible technique for revising failed UKA to TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(7):680–687

Aims. The aim of this study was to describe the pattern of revision indications for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and any change to this pattern for UKA patients over the last 20 years, and to investigate potential associations to changes in surgical practice over time. Methods. All primary knee arthroplasty surgeries performed due to primary osteoarthritis and their revisions reported to the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register from 1997 to 2017 were included. Complex surgeries were excluded. The data was linked to the National Patient Register and the Civil Registration System for comorbidity, mortality, and emigration status. TKAs were propensity score matched 4:1 to UKAs. Revision risks were compared using competing risk Cox proportional hazard regression with a shared γ frailty component. Results. Aseptic loosening (loosening) was the most common revision indication for both UKA (26.7%) and TKA (29.5%). Pain and disease progression accounted for 54.6% of the remaining UKA revisions. Infections and instability accounted for 56.1% of the remaining TKA revision. The incidence of revision due to loosening or pain decreased over the last decade, being the second and third least common indications in 2017. There was a decrease associated with fixation method for pain (hazard ratio (HR) 0.40; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.94) and loosening (HR 0.29; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.81) for cementless compared to cemented, and units UKA usage for pain (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.91), and loosening (HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.70) for high usage. Conclusion. The overall revision patterns for UKA and TKA for the last 20 years are comparable to previous published patterns. We found large changes to UKA revision patterns in the last decade, and with the current surgical practice, revision due to pain or loosening are significantly less likely. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(12):923–931

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

In the last decade, perioperative advancements have expanded the use of outpatient primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Despite this, there remains limited data on expedited discharge after revision TKA. This study compared 30-day readmissions and reoperations in patients undergoing revision TKA with a hospital stay greater or less than 24 hours. The authors hypothesized that expedited discharge in select patients would not be associated with increased 30-day readmissions and reoperations.

Aims

The aim of this study was to assess factors associated with the estimated lifetime risk of revision surgery after primary knee arthroplasty (KA).

Aims. 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. Methods. 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. Results. The lifetime risk of revision was highest in the youngest age group (46 to 50 years; 40.4%) and decreased sequentially to the oldest (86 to 90 years; 3.7%). Across all age groups, lifetime risk of revision was higher for females (ranging from 4.3% to 43.4% vs males 2.9% to 37.4%) and patients with a higher ASA grade (ASA 3 to 4, ranging from 8.8% to 41.2% vs ASA 1 1.8% to 29.8%). The lifetime risk of revision for UKA was double that of TKA across all age groups (ranging from 3.7% to 40.4% for UKA, and 1.6% to 22.4% for TKA). The higher risk of revision in younger patients was associated with aseptic loosening in both sexes and pain in females. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) accounted for 4% of all UKA revisions, in contrast with 27% for TKA; the risk of PJI was higher for males than females for both procedures. Conclusion. Lifetime risk of revision may be a more meaningful measure of arthroplasty outcomes than implant survival at defined time periods. This study highlights the higher lifetime risk of UKA revision for younger patients, females, and those with a higher ASA grade, which can aid with patient counselling prior to UKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(6):672–679

Aims

Uncemented mobile bearing designs in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) have seen an increase over the last decade. However, there are a lack of large-scale studies comparing survivorship of these specific designs to commonly used cemented mobile and fixed bearing designs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the survivorship of these designs.

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare ten-year longitudinal healthcare costs and revision rates for patients undergoing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Aims

Ideal component sizing may be difficult to achieve in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Anatomical variants, incremental implant size, and a reduced surgical exposure may lead to over- or under-sizing of the components. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of UKA sizing with robotic-assisted techniques versus a conventional surgical technique.

Aims. The purpose of this study was to compare the radiological outcomes of manual versus robotic-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Methods. Postoperative radiological outcomes from 86 consecutive robotic-assisted UKAs (RAUKA group) from a single academic centre were retrospectively reviewed and compared to 253 manual UKAs (MUKA group) drawn from a prior study at our institution. Femoral coronal and sagittal angles (FCA, FSA), tibial coronal and sagittal angles (TCA, TSA), and implant overhang were radiologically measured to identify outliers. Results. When assessing the accuracy of RAUKAs, 91.6% of all alignment measurements and 99.2% of all overhang measurements were within the target range. All alignment and overhang targets were simultaneously met in 68.6% of RAUKAs. When comparing radiological outcomes between the RAUKA and MUKA groups, statistically significant differences were identified for combined outliers in FCA (2.3% vs 12.6%; p = 0.006), FSA (17.4% vs 50.2%; p < 0.001), TCA (5.8% vs 41.5%; p < 0.001), and TSA (8.1% vs 18.6%; p = 0.023), as well as anterior (0.0% vs 4.7%; p = 0.042), posterior (1.2% vs 13.4%; p = 0.001), and medial (1.2% vs 14.2%; p < 0.001) overhang outliers. Conclusion. Robotic system navigation decreases alignment and overhang outliers compared to manual UKA. Given the association between component placement errors and revision in UKA, this strong significant improvement in accuracy may improve implant survival. Level of Evidence: III. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2-3:191–197

Aims. 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. Methods. 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. Results. There were no differences between the two groups based on demographics or time to revision. The top reasons for aseptic TKA revision were loosening in 212 (44%), instability in 88 (18%), and wear in 69 (14%). UKA revision diagnoses were primarily for loosening in 50 (36%), progression of osteoarthritis (OA) in 50 (36%), and wear in 17 (12%). Out of a maximum 48 points, the mean OKS of the UKAs before revision was 23 (SD 9.3), which was significantly higher than the TKAs at 19.2 (SD 9.8; p < 0.001). UKA patients scored statistically better on nine of the 12 individual OKS questions. The UKA cases also had a larger pre-revision mean ROM (114°, SD 14.3°) than TKAs (98°, SD 25°) ; p < 0.001). Conclusion. At revision, the mean UKA OKSs and ROM were significantly better than those of TKA cases. This study suggests that at our institution there is a difference in preoperative OKS between UKA and TKA at the time of revision, demonstrating a revision bias. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6 Supple A):91–95

Aims. Little is known about the relative outcomes of revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and high tibial osteotomy (HTO) to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of revision surgery for the two procedures in terms of complications, re-revision and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at a minimum of two years follow-up. Patients and Methods. This study was a retrospective review of data from an institutional arthroplasty registry for cases performed between 2001 and 2014. A total of 292 patients were identified, of which 217 had a revision of HTO to TKA, and 75 had revision of UKA to TKA. While mean follow-up was longer for the HTO group compared with the UKA group, patient demographics (age, body mass index and Charlson co-morbidity index) and PROMs (Short Form-36, Oxford Knee Score, Knee Society Score, both objective and functional) were similar in the two groups prior to revision surgery. Outcomes included the rate of complications and re-operation, PROMS and patient-reported satisfaction at six months and two years post-operatively. We also compared the duration of surgery and the need for revision implants in the two groups. . Results . At two-year follow-up, both groups of patients had made significant improvement in terms of PROMs compared with pre-operative scores. PROMs and satisfaction rates were similar in the two groups. Complications requiring re-operation were significantly more frequent in the HTO group whilst more revision implants were used in the UKA group, resulting in a longer operative duration. . Conclusion. Revision of HTO and UKA achieve similar post-operative PROMs and satisfaction. Revision of UKA more frequently requires revision components with increased operation duration but fewer complications requiring re-operation compared with revision of HTO. . Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1329–34

Aims

Our aim was to examine the clinical and radiographic outcomes in 257 consecutive Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (OUKAs) (238 patients), five years post-operatively.

Objectives. 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. Materials and Methods. 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. Results. The most common reasons for failure are liner dislocation, aseptic loosening, disease progression of another compartment and unexplained pain. . UKA can be revised to or with another UKA if the failure mode allows reconstruction of the joint with UKA components. In case of disease progression another UKA can be added, either at the patellofemoral joint or at the remaining tibiofemoral joint. Often the accompanying damage to the knee joint doesn’t allow these two former techniques resulting in a primary TKA. In a third of cases, revision TKA components are necessary. This is usually on the tibial side where augments and stems might be required. Conclusions. In case of failure of UKA, several less invasive revision techniques remain available to obtain primary results. Revision in a late stage of failure or because of surgical mistakes might ask for the use of revision components limiting the clinical outcome for the patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B(1 Supple A):65–9

Aims

The aim of this to study was to compare the previously unreported long-term survival outcome of the Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) performed by trainee surgeons and consultants.

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has advantages over total knee arthroplasty but national joint registries report a significantly higher revision rate for UKA. As a result, most surgeons are highly selective, offering UKA only to a small proportion (up to 5%) of patients requiring arthroplasty of the knee, and consequently performing few each year. However, surgeons with large UKA practices have the lowest rates of revision. The overall size of the practice is often beyond the surgeon’s control, therefore case volume may only be increased by broadening the indications for surgery, and offering UKA to a greater proportion of patients requiring arthroplasty of the knee. . The aim of this study was to determine the optimal UKA usage (defined as the percentage of knee arthroplasty practice comprised by UKA) to minimise the rate of revision in a sample of 41 986 records from the for National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR). UKA usage has a complex, non-linear relationship with the rate of revision. Acceptable results are achieved with the use of 20% or more. Optimal results are achieved with usage between 40% and 60%. Surgeons with the lowest usage (up to 5%) have the highest rates of revision. With optimal usage, using the most commonly used implant, five-year survival is 96% (95% confidence interval (CI) 94.9 to 96.0), compared with 90% (95% CI 88.4 to 91.6) with low usage (5%) previously considered ideal. . The rate of revision of UKA is highest with low usage, implying the use of narrow, and perhaps inappropriate, indications. The widespread use of broad indications, using appropriate implants, would give patients the advantages of UKA, without the high rate of revision. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1506–11

There is a large amount of evidence available about the relative merits of unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty (UKA and TKA). Based on the same evidence, different people draw different conclusions and as a result, there is great variability in the usage of UKA. The revision rate of UKA is much higher than TKA and so some surgeons conclude that UKA should not be performed. Other surgeons believe that the main reason for the high revision rate is that UKA is easy to revise and, therefore, the threshold for revision is low. They also believe that UKA has many advantages over TKA such as a faster recovery, lower morbidity and mortality and better function. They therefore conclude that UKA should be undertaken whenever appropriate. . The solution to this argument is to minimise the revision rate of UKA, thereby addressing the main disadvantage of UKA. The evidence suggests that this will be achieved if surgeons use UKA for at least 20% of their knee arthroplasties and use implants that are appropriate for these broad indications. . Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B(10 Suppl A):3–8

This study reports on the first 150 consecutive Oxford cementless unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKA) performed in an independent centre (126 patients). All eligible patients had functional scores (Oxford knee score and high activity arthroplasty score) recorded pre-operatively and at two- and five-years of follow-up. Fluoroscopically aligned radiographs were taken at five years and analysed for any evidence of radiolucent lines (RLLs), subsidence or loosening. The mean age of the cohort was 63.6 years (39 to 86) with 81 (53.1%) males. Excellent functional scores were maintained at five years and there were no progressive RLLs demonstrated on radiographs. Two patients underwent revision to a total knee arthroplasty giving a revision rate of 0.23/100 (95% confidence interval 0.03 to 0.84) component years with overall component survivorship of 98.7% at five years. There were a further four patients who underwent further surgery on the same knee, two underwent bearing exchanges for dislocation and two underwent lateral UKAs for disease progression. This was a marked improvement from other UKAs reported in New Zealand Joint Registry data and supports the designing centre’s early results.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1358–63.