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.

Obtaining a balanced flexion gap with correct femoral component rotation is one of the prerequisites for a successful outcome after total knee replacement (TKR). Different techniques for achieving this have been described. In this study we prospectively compared gap-balancing versus measured resection in terms of reliability and accuracy for femoral component rotation in 96 primary TKRs performed in 96 patients using the Journey system. In 48 patients (18 men and 30 women) with a mean age of 65 years (45 to 85) a tensor device was used to determine rotation. In the second group of 48 patients (14 men and 34 women) with a mean age of 64 years (41 to 86), an ‘adapted’ measured resection technique was used, taking into account the native rotational geometry of the femur as measured on a pre-operative CT scan.

Both groups systematically reproduced a similar external rotation of the femoral component relative to the surgical transepicondylar axis: 2.4° (sd 2.5) in the gap-balancing group and 1.7° (sd 2.1) in the measured resection group (p = 0.134). Both gap-balancing and adapted measured resection techniques proved equally reliable and accurate in determining femoral component rotation after TKR. There was a tendency towards more external rotation in the gap-balancing group, but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.134). The number of outliers for our ‘adapted’ measured resection technique was much lower than reported in the literature.

The lateral subvastus approach combined with an osteotomy of the tibial tubercle is a recognised, but rarely used approach for total knee replacement (TKR). A total of 32 patients undergoing primary TKR was randomised into two groups, in one of which the lateral subvastus approach combined with a tibial tubercle osteotomy and in the other the medial parapatellar approach were used. The patients were assessed radiologically and clinically using measurement of the range of movement, a visual analogue patient satisfaction score, the Western Ontario McMasters University Osteoarthritis Index and the American Knee Society score. Four patients were lost to the complete follow-up at two years.

At two years there were no significant differences between the groups in any of the parameters for clinical outcome. In the lateral approach group there was one complication due to displacement of the tibial tubercle osteotomy and two osteotomies took more than six months to unite. In the medial approach group, one patient had a partial tear of the quadriceps. There was a significantly greater incidence of lateral patellar subluxation in the medial approach group (3 of 12) compared with the lateral approach group (0 of 16) (p = 0.034), but without any apparent clinical detriment.

We conclude that the lateral approach with tibial tubercle osteotomy is a safe technique with an outcome comparable with that of the medial parapatellar approach for TKR, but the increased surgical time and its specific complications do not support its routine use. It would seem to be more appropriate to reserve this technique for patients in whom problems with patellar tracking are anticipated.