There has been a significant reduction in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) procedures recorded in Australia. This follows several national joint registry studies documenting high UKA revision rates when compared to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). With the recent introduction of robotically assisted UKA procedures, it is hoped that outcomes improve. This study examines the cumulative revision rate of UKA procedures implanted with a newly introduced robotic system and compares the results to one of the best performing non-robotically assisted UKA prostheses, as well as all other non-robotically assisted UKA procedures. Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Arthroplasty Registry (AOANJRR) for all UKA procedures performed for osteoarthritis (OA) between 2015 and 2018 were analyzed. Procedures using the Restoris MCK UKA prosthesis implanted using the Mako Robotic-Arm Assisted System were compared to non-robotically assisted Zimmer Unicompartmental High Flex Knee System (ZUK) UKA, a commonly used UKA with previously reported good outcomes and to all other non-robotically assisted UKA procedures using Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) and Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship.Aim
Methods
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.
