header advert
You currently have no access to view or download this content. Please log in with your institutional or personal account if you should have access to through either of these
The Bone & Joint Journal Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from The Bone & Joint Journal

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Get Access locked padlock


Risk of revision for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty according to fixation and bearing type

short- to mid-term results from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register

Download PDF



Uncemented mobile bearing designs in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) have seen an increase over the last decade. However, there are a lack of large-scale studies comparing survivorship of these specific designs to commonly used cemented mobile and fixed bearing designs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the survivorship of these designs.


A total of 21,610 medial UKAs from 2007 to 2018 were selected from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Multivariate Cox regression analyses were used to compare uncemented mobile bearings with cemented mobile and fixed bearings. Adjustments were made for patient and surgical factors, with their interactions being considered. Reasons and type of revision in the first two years after surgery were assessed.


In hospitals performing less than 100 cases per year, cemented mobile bearings reported comparable adjusted risks of revision as uncemented mobile bearings. However, in hospitals performing more than 100 cases per year, the adjusted risk of revision was higher for cemented mobile bearings compared to uncemented mobile bearings (hazard ratio 1.78 (95% confidence interval 1.34 to 2.35)). The adjusted risk of revision between cemented fixed bearing and uncemented mobile bearing was comparable, independent of annual hospital volume. In addition, 12.3% of uncemented mobile bearing, 20.3% of cemented mobile bearing, and 41.5% of uncemented fixed bearing revisions were for tibial component loosening. The figures for instability were 23.6%, 14.5% and 11.7%, respectively, and for periprosthetic fractures were 10.0%, 2.8%, and 3.5%. Bearing exchange was the type of revision in 40% of uncemented mobile bearing, 24.3% of cemented mobile bearing, and 5.3% cemented fixed bearing revisions.


The findings of this study demonstrated improved survival with use of uncemented compared to cemented mobile bearings in medial UKA, only in those hospitals performing more than 100 cases per year. Cemented fixed bearings reported comparable survival results as uncemented mobile bearings, regardless of the annual hospital volume. The high rates of instability, periprosthetic fractures, and bearing exchange in uncemented mobile bearings emphasize the need for further research.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1261–1269.

Correspondence should be sent to Joost A. Burger. E-mail:

For access options please click here