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.

The February 2014 Knee Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: whether sham surgery is as good as arthroscopic meniscectomy; distraction in knee osteoarthritis; whether trans-tibial tunnel placement increases the risk of graft failure in ACL surgery; whether joint replacements prevent cardiac events; the size of the pulmonary embolism problem; tranexamic acid and knee replacement haemostasis; matching the demand for knee replacement and follow-up; predicting the length of stay after knee replacement; and popliteal artery injury in TKR.

The February 2014 Research Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: blood supply to the femoral head after dislocation; diabetes and hip replacement; bone remodelling over two decades following hip replacement; sham surgery as good as arthroscopic meniscectomy; distraction in knee osteoarthritis; whether joint replacement prevent cardiac events; tranexamic acid and knee replacement haemostasis; cartilage colonisation in bipolar ankle grafts; CTs and proof of fusion; atorvastatin for muscle re-innervation after sciatic nerve transection; microfracture and short-term pain in cuff repair; promising early results from L-PRF augmented cuff repairs; and fatty degeneration in a rodent model.

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.