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

Objectives

Initial stability of tibial trays is crucial for long-term success of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in both primary and revision settings. Rotating platform (RP) designs reduce torque transfer at the tibiofemoral interface. We asked if this reduced torque transfer in RP designs resulted in subsequently reduced micromotion at the cemented fixation interface between the prosthesis component and the adjacent bone.

We measured the pressure distribution across the tibiofemoral and patellofemoral joints during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using Fuji pressure-sensitive film (Prescale) in 51 patients (63 joints) comparing the results with those in 21 patients in whom Prescale was not used. We classified the stress-distribution patterns in the tibiofemoral joints into four types: normal, varus-valgus instability, rotational malalignment, and a combination of instability and malrotation. The medial ligaments were then released according to the information obtained from these patterns. The conformity ratio of the contact area between repeated trials was 87.0%. Pressure distribution across the patellofemoral joints was also considered. There was a significant decrease in the mean valgus stress angle in the Prescale group compared with the control group (p < 0.01). Release of the lateral retinaculum according to the results showed no significant differences in subluxation of the patella between the released group and the group which did not appear to need this procedure