We report the clinical and radiological results of a two- to three-year prospective randomised study which was designed to compare a minimally-invasive technique with a standard technique in total knee replacement and was undertaken between January 2004 and May 2007. The mini-midvastus approach was used on 50 patients (group A) and a standard approach on 50 patients (group B). The mean follow-up in both groups was 23 months (24 to 35).

The functional outcome was better in group A up to nine months after operation, as shown by statistically significant differences in the mean function score, mean total score and the mean Oxford knee score (all, p = 0.05). Patients in group A had statistically significant greater early flexion (p = 0.04) and reached their greatest mean knee flexion of 126.5° (95° to 135°) 21 days after operation. However, at final follow-up there was no significant difference in the mean maximum flexion between the groups (p = 0.08). Technical errors were identified in six patients from group A (12%) on radiological evaluation.

Based on these results, the authors currently use minimally-invasive techniques in total knee replacement in selected cases only.

We present a comparison of the results of the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients younger and older than 60 years of age. The ten-year all-cause survival of the < 60 years of age group (52) was 91% (95% confidence interval (CI) 12), while in the ≥ 60 years of age group (512), the figure was 96% (95% CI 3). For the younger group, the mean Hospital for Special Surgery score at ten-year follow-up (n = 21) was 94 of 100, compared with a mean of 86 of 100 for the older group (n = 135). The results show that the Oxford unicompartmental arthroplasty can achieve ten-year results that are comparable to total knee arthroplasty in patients < 60 years of age. We conclude that for patients aged over 50, age should not be considered a contraindication for this procedure.