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
The Oxford
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. 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.Objectives
Materials and Methods
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 ( 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.
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. This study was a retrospective review of data from an institutional
arthroplasty registry for cases performed between 2001 and 2014.
A total of 292 patients were identified, of which 217 had a revision
of HTO to TKA, and 75 had revision of UKA to TKA. While mean follow-up
was longer for the HTO group compared with the UKA group, patient
demographics (age, body mass index and Charlson co-morbidity index)
and PROMs (Short Form-36, Oxford Knee Score, Knee Society Score,
both objective and functional) were similar in the two groups prior
to revision surgery. Outcomes included the rate of complications
and
re-operation, PROMS and patient-reported satisfaction at six months
and two years post-operatively. We also compared the duration of
surgery and the need for revision implants in the two groups. Aims
Patients and Methods
This systematic review aims to compare the precision of component positioning, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), complications, survivorship, cost-effectiveness, and learning curves of MAKO robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (RAUKA) with manual medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (mUKA). Searches of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar were performed in November 2021 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. Search terms included “robotic”, “unicompartmental”, “knee”, and “arthroplasty”. Published clinical research articles reporting the learning curves and cost-effectiveness of MAKO RAUKA, and those comparing the component precision, functional outcomes, survivorship, or complications with mUKA, were included for analysis.Aims
Methods
It has been hypothesized that a unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is more likely to be revised than a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) because conversion surgery to a primary TKA is a less complicated procedure. The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a lower threshold for revising a UKA compared with TKA based on Oxford Knee Scores (OKSs) and range of movement (ROM) at the time of revision. We retrospectively reviewed 619 aseptic revision cases performed between December 1998 and October 2018. This included 138 UKAs that underwent conversion to TKA and 481 initial TKA revisions. Age, body mass index (BMI), time in situ, OKS, and ROM were available for all patients.Aims
Methods
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
The December 2013 Research Roundup. 360 . looks at: Inflammation implicated in FAI; Ponseti and effective teaching;
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
Partial knee arthroplasty (PKA), either medial
or lateral
The December 2024 Knee Roundup360 looks at: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty in the same patient?; Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is it a good option?; The fate of the unresurfaced patellae in contemporary total knee arthroplasty: early- to mid-term results; Tibial baseplate migration is not associated with change in PROMs and clinical scores after total knee arthroplasty; Unexpected positive intraoperative cultures in aseptic revision knee arthroplasty: what effect does this have?; Kinematic or mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty surgery?; Revision total knee arthroplasty achieves minimal clinically important difference faster than primary total knee arthroplasty; Outcomes after successful DAIR for periprosthetic joint infection in total knee arthroplasty.
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 cementless Oxford
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.
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. This study was a retrospective case-control study using the UK Biobank to identify individuals reporting a history of cruciate ligament surgery. Data from verbal history and procedural codes recorded through the NHS were used to identify instances of TKA. Patient clinical and genetic data were used to identify risk factors for progression from cruciate ligament surgery to TKA. Individuals without a history of cruciate ligament reconstruction were used for comparison.Aims
Methods
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. Analyses were performed on propensity score-matched patient cohorts of TKAs and UKAs (2:1) registered in the New Zealand Joint Registry between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 2019 with an Oxford Knee Score (OKS) response at six months (n, TKA: 16,774; UKA: 8,387), five years (TKA: 6,718; UKA: 3,359), or ten years (TKA: 3,486; UKA: 1,743). Associations between OKS and revision within two years following the score were examined. Thresholds were compared using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Reasons for aseptic revision were compared using cumulative incidence with competing risk.Aims
Methods
Mobile-bearing