Aims. Primary (or spontaneous) and secondary osteonecrosis of the knee can lead to severe joint degeneration, for which either total or unicompartmental arthroplasty may be considered. However, there are limited studies analyzing outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKAs) for osteonecrosis involving an isolated compartment of the knee. The aims of this study were to analyze outcomes of UKAs for osteonecrosis with specific focus on 1) survivorship free of any revision or reoperation, 2) risk factors for failure, 3) clinical outcomes, and 4) complications. Patients and Methods. A total of 45 patients underwent 46 UKAs for knee osteonecrosis between 2002 and 2014 at our institution (The Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota). Twenty patients (44%) were female; the mean age of the patients was 66 years, and mean body mass index (BMI) was 31 kg/m. 2. Of the 46 UKAs, 44 (96%) were medial UKAs, and 35 (76%) were fixed-bearing design. Mean mechanical axis postoperatively was 1.5° varus (0° to 5° varus); 41 UKAs (89%) were performed for primary osteonecrosis. Mean follow-up was five years (2 to 12). Results. Survivorship free of any revision in the cohort was 89% (95% CI 77 to 99) and 76% (95% CI 53 to 99) at five and ten years, respectively. In patients undergoing UKA for primary osteonecrosis survivorship free of any revision was 93% (95% CI 83 to 100)at both five and ten years. Secondary osteonecrosis was a significant risk factor for poorer survivorship free of any revision or reoperation (hazard ratio 7.7, p = 0.03). Three medial UKAs (6.5%) were converted to total knee arthroplasties (TKAs): two for lateral compartment degeneration and one for development of lateral osteonecrosis. No implants were revised for loosening, fracture, or wear. Knee Society scores improved from a mean of 60 (44 to 72) preoperatively to a mean of 94 postoperatively (82 to 100) (p < 0.001). There were no surgical complications. Conclusion. When done for primary osteonecrosis of the knee, UKA resulted in reliable clinical improvement, minimal complications, and durable estimated implant survivorship free of revision at ten years. UKA done for secondary osteonecrosis was substantially less durable at mid-term follow-up. Progression of knee degeneration, rather than implant failure or loosening, was most common indication for conversion to TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:450–4

The Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is an established treatment option in the management of symptomatic end-stage medial compartmental osteoarthritis (MCOA), which works well in the young and active patient. However, previous studies have shown that it is reliable only in the presence of a functionally intact anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). This review reports the outcomes, at a mean of five years and a maximum of ten years, of 52 consecutive patients with a mean age of 51 years (36 to 57) who underwent staged or simultaneous ACL reconstruction and Oxford UKR. At the last follow-up (with one patient lost to follow-up), the mean Oxford knee score was 41 (. sd. 6.3; 17 to 48). Two patients required conversion to TKR: one for progression of lateral compartment osteoarthritis and one for infection. Implant survival at five years was 93% (95% CI 83 to 100). All but one patient reported being satisfied with the procedure. The outcome was not significantly influenced by age, gender, femoral or tibial tunnel placement, or whether the procedure was undertaken at one- or two-stages. In summary, ACL reconstruction and Oxford UKR gives good results in patients with end-stage MCOA secondary to ACL deficiency

Aims

While residual fixed flexion deformity (FFD) in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has been associated with worse functional outcomes, limited evidence exists regarding FFD changes. The objective of this study was to quantify FFD changes in patients with medial unicompartmental knee arthritis undergoing UKA, and investigate any correlation with clinical outcomes.

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.

Medium-term survivorship of the Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) has not yet been established in an Asian population. We prospectively evaluated the outcome of 400 phase 3 Oxford UKRs in 320 Korean patients with a mean age at the time of operation of 69 years (48 to 82). The mean follow-up was 5.2 years (1 to 10). Clinical and radiological assessment was carried out pre- and post-operatively. At five years, the mean Knee Society knee and functional scores had increased significantly from 56.2 (30 to 91) pre-operatively to 87.2 (59 to 98) (p = 0.034) and from 59.2 (30 to 93) to 88.3 (50 to 100) (p = 0.021), respectively. The Oxford knee score increased from a mean of 25.8 (12 to 39) pre-operatively to 39.8 (25 to 58) at five years (p = 0.038). The ten-year survival rate was 94% (95% confidence interval 90.1 to 98.0). A total of 14 UKRs (3.5%) required revision. The most common reason for revision was dislocation of the bearing in 12 (3%). Conversion to a total knee replacement was required in two patients who developed osteoarthritis of the lateral compartment.

This is the largest published series of UKR in Korean patients. It shows that the mid-term results after a minimally invasive Oxford phase 3 UKR can yield satisfactory clinical and functional results in this group of patients.

The Oxford mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is an effective and safe treatment for osteoarthritis of the medial compartment. The results in the lateral compartment have been disappointing due to a high early rate of dislocation of the bearing. A series using a newly designed domed tibial component is reported.

The first 50 consecutive domed lateral Oxford UKRs in 50 patients with a mean follow-up of three years (2.0 to 4.3) were included. Clinical scores were obtained prospectively and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed for different endpoints. Radiological variables related to the position and alignment of the components were measured.

One patient died and none was lost to follow-up. The cumulative incidence of dislocation was 6.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.0 to 17.9) at three years. Survival using revision for any reason and aseptic revision was 94% (95% CI 82 to 98) and 96% (95% CI 85 to 99) at three years, respectively. Outcome scores, visual analogue scale for pain and maximum knee flexion showed a significant improvement (p < 0.001). The mean Oxford knee score was 43 (sd 5.3), the mean Objective American Knee Society score was 91 (sd 13.9) and the mean Functional American Knee Society score was 90 (sd 17.5). The mean maximum flexion was 127° (90° to 145°). Significant elevation of the lateral joint line as measured by the proximal tibial varus angle (p = 0.04) was evident in the dislocation group when compared with the non-dislocation group.

Clinical results are excellent and short-term survival has improved when compared with earlier series. The risk of dislocation remains higher using a mobile-bearing UKR in the lateral compartment when compared with the medial compartment. Patients should be informed about this complication. To avoid dislocations, care must be taken not to elevate the lateral joint line.

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.

The August 2023 Knee Roundup. 360. looks at: Curettage and cementation of giant cell tumour of bone: is arthritis a given?; Anterior knee pain following total knee arthroplasty: does the patellar cement-bone interface affect postoperative anterior knee pain?; Nickel allergy and total knee arthroplasty; The use of artificial intelligence for the prediction of periprosthetic joint infection following aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty; Ambulatory unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: development of a patient selection tool using machine learning; Femoral asymmetry: a missing piece in knee alignment; Needle arthroscopy – a benefit to patients in the outpatient setting; Can lateral unicompartmental knees be done in a day-case setting?

The December 2013 Research Roundup. 360 . looks at: Inflammation implicated in FAI; Ponseti and effective teaching; Unicompartmental knee design and tibial strain; Bisphosphonates and fracture healing; Antibiosis in cement; Zoledronic acid improves primary stability in revision?; Osteoporotic fractures revisited; and electroarthrography for monitoring of cartilage degeneration

The October 2014 Knee Roundup. 360 . looks at: microfracture equivalent to OATS; examination better than MRI in predicting hamstrings re-injury; a second view on return to play with hamstrings injuries; dislocation risks in the Oxford Unicompartmental Knee; what about the tibia?; getting on top of lateral facet pain post TKR; readmission in TKR; patient-specific instrumentation; treating infrapatellar saphenous neuralgia; and arthroscopy in the middle-aged

Partial knee arthroplasty (PKA), either medial or lateral unicompartmental knee artroplasty (UKA) or patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) are a good option in suitable patients and have the advantages of reduced operative trauma, preservation of both cruciate ligaments and bone stock, and restoration of normal kinematics within the knee joint. However, questions remain concerning long-term survival. The goal of this review article was to present the long-term results of medial and lateral UKA, PFA and combined compartmental arthroplasty for multicompartmental disease. Medium- and long-term studies suggest reasonable outcomes at ten years with survival greater than 95% in UKA performed for medial osteoarthritis or osteonecrosis, and similarly for lateral UKA, particularly when fixed-bearing implants are used. Disappointing long-term outcomes have been observed with the first generation of patellofemoral implants, as well as early Bi-Uni (ie, combined medial and lateral UKA) or Bicompartmental (combined UKA and PFA) implants due to design and fixation issues. Promising short- and med-term results with the newer generations of PFAs and bicompartmental arthroplasties will require long-term confirmation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B(10 Suppl A):9–15

The cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement has been demonstrated to have superior fixation on radiographs and a similar early complication rate compared with the cemented version. However, a small number of cases have come to our attention where, after an apparently successful procedure, the tibial component subsides into a valgus position with an increased posterior slope, before becoming well-fixed. We present the clinical and radiological findings of these six patients and describe their natural history and the likely causes. Two underwent revision in the early post-operative period, and in four the implant stabilised and became well-fixed radiologically with a good functional outcome. . This situation appears to be avoidable by minor modifications to the operative technique, and it appears that it can be treated conservatively in most patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:345–9

The June 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Machine learning to identify surgical candidates for hip and knee arthroplasty: a viable option?; Poor outcome after debridement and implant retention; Can you cement polyethylene liners into well-fixed acetabular shells in hip revision?; Revision stem in primary arthroplasties: the Exeter 44/0 125 mm stem; Depression and anxiety: could they be linked to infection?; Does where you live affect your outcomes after hip and knee arthroplasties?; Racial disparities in outcomes after total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty are substantially mediated by socioeconomic disadvantage both in black and white patients.

The December 2023 Knee Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Obesity is associated with greater improvement in patient-reported outcomes following primary total knee arthroplasty; Does mild flexion of the femoral prosthesis in total knee arthroplasty result in better early postoperative outcomes?; Robotic or manual total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial; Patient-relevant outcomes following first revision total knee arthroplasty, by diagnosis: an analysis of implant survivorship, mortality, serious medical complications, and patient-reported outcome measures using the National Joint Registry data set; Sagittal alignment in total knee arthroplasty: are there any discrepancies between robotic-assisted and manual axis orientation?; Tourniquet use does not impact recovery trajectory in total knee arthroplasty; Impact of proximal tibial varus anatomy on survivorship after medial unicondylar knee arthroplasty; Bone cement directly to the implant in primary total knee arthroplasty?; Maintaining joint line obliquity optimizes outcomes in patients with constitutionally varus knees.

Aims

The purpose of this study is to determine an individual’s age-specific prevalence of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) after cruciate ligament surgery, and to identify clinical and genetic risk factors associated with undergoing TKA.

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.

Mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee replacements (UKRs) with a flat tibial plateau have not performed well in the lateral compartment, owing to a high dislocation rate. This led to the development of the Domed Lateral Oxford UKR (Domed OUKR) with a biconcave bearing. The aim of this study was to assess the survival and clinical outcomes of the Domed OUKR in a large patient cohort in the medium term. We prospectively evaluated 265 consecutive knees with isolated disease of the lateral compartment and a mean age at surgery of 64 years (32 to 90). At a mean follow-up of four years (. sd. 2.2, (0.5 to 8.3)) the mean Oxford knee score was 40 out of 48 (. sd. 7.4). A total of 12 knees (4.5%) had re-operations, of which four (1.5%) were for dislocation. All dislocations occurred in the first two years. Two (0.8%) were secondary to significant trauma that resulted in ruptured ligaments, and two (0.8%) were spontaneous. In four patients (1.5%) the UKR was converted to a primary TKR. Survival at eight years, with failure defined as any revision, was 92.1% (95% confidence interval 81.3 to 100). . The Domed Lateral OUKR gives good clinical outcomes, low re-operation and revision rates and a low dislocation rate in patients with isolated lateral compartmental disease, in the hands of the designer surgeons. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:59–64

The Cementless Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacement (OUKR) was developed to address problems related to cementation, and has been demonstrated in a randomised study to have similar clinical outcomes with fewer radiolucencies than observed with the cemented device. However, before its widespread use it is necessary to clarify contraindications and assess the complications. This requires a larger study than any previously published. We present a prospective multicentre series of 1000 cementless OUKRs in 881 patients at a minimum follow-up of one year. All patients had radiological assessment aligned to the bone–implant interfaces and clinical scores. Analysis was performed at a mean of 38.2 months (19 to 88) following surgery. A total of 17 patients died (comprising 19 knees (1.9%)), none as a result of surgery; there were no tibial or femoral loosenings. A total of 19 knees (1.9%) had significant implant-related complications or required revision. Implant survival at six years was 97.2%, and there was a partial radiolucency at the bone–implant interface in 72 knees (8.9%), with no complete radiolucencies. There was no significant increase in complication rate compared with cemented fixation (p = 0.87), and no specific contraindications to cementless fixation were identified. Cementless OUKR appears to be safe and reproducible in patients with end-stage anteromedial osteoarthritis of the knee, with radiological evidence of improved fixation compared with previous reports using cemented fixation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:181–7

We assessed the outcome of patients who were lost to follow-up after arthroplasty by a single surgeon. The aim was to validate the surgeon’s data set with the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry and determine the outcome of those patients lost to follow-up. Prospective data on patient demographics, operative details and outcomes of the surgeon’s 1192 primary unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) procedures were analysed. There were 69 knees in patients who were lost to follow-up, among whom the Registry identified 31 deaths and eight revisions. The cumulative percentage revision (CPR) at seven years using the additional Registry data was 8.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 7 to 11). Using the surgeon’s data, the CPR at seven years was 8% (95% CI 6.3 to 10.1) for the best-case scenario where loss to follow-up was excluded, and 16% (95% CI 13.8 to 19.4) for the worst-case scenario, where all patients lost to follow-up were deemed to have been revised. There was a significantly higher mortality rate in those patients lost to follow-up. This study demonstrates that a national joint registry can be used by individual surgeons to establish more accurate revision rates in their arthroplasty patients. This is expected to facilitate a more rigorous audit of surgical outcomes by surgeons and lead to more accurate and uniform reporting of the results of arthroplasty in general