Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ASCO Annual Meeting 2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Keep up to date with all the top stories and latest evidence with our hub page, including official congress videos and expert takeaways.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 3/2023

Open Access 05-09-2022 | KNEE

Impact of age on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Authors: Loay A. Salman, Abedallah Abudalou, Harman Khatkar, Ghalib Ahmed, Stephanie G. Dakin, Benjamin Kendrick, David W. Murray

Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 3/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is an effective treatment for late knee osteoarthritis (OA). Young age (< 60 years) has been associated with worse outcomes. The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to study the effect of age on UKA outcomes.

Methods

The primary objective was to compare the UKA revision rate in young patients with that of old patients, using the age thresholds of 60 and 55 years. Secondary objectives were patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and implant design. Five databases were searched in December 2021 for original comparative studies with a minimum of 1-year follow-up. No restrictions were placed on the type of UKA prosthesis.

Results

A total of 11 observational studies with 6130 knees were included. A mean MINORS score of 19 was assigned to the review. The mean age of patients was 64 years, with average follow-up of 7.5 ± 2.98 years. There was no significant difference in revision rate, incident or PROMs between young and old patients in the analysis for each age threshold. Further sub-analysis adjusting for implant type in mobile- and fixed-bearing prostheses also showed similar results between those above and under 60 and 55 years.

Conclusion

Young age was not associated with a higher revision rate or lower functional scores. Thus, this review provides evidence that age alone is not a contraindication to UKA, but the surgical choice must be based on several elements, and this finding should be applied in context, given the binary division and heterogeneity of patients.

Level of evidence

III.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Argenson JN, Parratte S (2006) The unicompartmental knee: design and technical considerations in minimizing wear. Clin Orthop Relat Res 452:137–142CrossRefPubMed
3.
Beard DJ, Davies LJ, Cook JA, MacLennan G, Price A, Kent S et al (2019) The clinical and cost-effectiveness of total versus partial knee replacement in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis (TOPKAT): 5-year outcomes of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 394(10200):746–756CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Collier MB, Eickmann TH, Sukezaki F, McAuley JP, Engh GA (2006) Patient, implant, and alignment factors associated with revision of medial compartment unicondylar arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 21:108–115CrossRefPubMed
5.
Culliford D, Maskell J, Judge A, Cooper C, Prieto-Alhambra D, Arden NK (2015) Future projections of total hip and knee arthroplasty in the UK: results from the UK clinical practice research datalink. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 23(4):594–600CrossRefPubMed
6.
Goodfellow JW, Kershaw CJ, Benson MK, O’Connor JJ (1988) The Oxford Knee for unicompartmental osteoarthritis. The first 103 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br 70(5):692–701CrossRefPubMed
7.
Gulati A, Pandit H, Jenkins C, Chau R, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2009) The effect of leg alignment on the outcome of unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91:469–474CrossRefPubMed
8.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P et al (2008) GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336(7650):924–926CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Hamilton TW, Pandit HG, Inabathula A, Ostlere SJ, Jenkins C, Mellon SJ et al (2017) Unsatisfactory outcomes following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients with partial thickness cartilage loss. Bone Joint J. 99(B4):475–482CrossRefPubMed
10.
Hamilton TW, Pandit HG, Jenkins C, Mellon SJ, Dodd CAF, Murray DW (2017) Evidence-based indications for mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in a consecutive cohort of thousand knees. J Arthroplasty 32:1779–1785CrossRefPubMed
11.
Hauer G, Bernhardt GA, Hohenberger G, Leitner L, Ruckenstuhl P, Leithner A et al (2020) Similar revision rates in clinical studies and arthroplasty registers and no bias for developer publications in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 140(4):537–544CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Huang F, Wu D, Chang J, Zhang C, Qin K, Liao F et al (2021) A Comparison of mobile- and fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasties in the treatment of medial knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 1861 patients. J Knee Surg 34:434–443CrossRefPubMed
13.
Ingale PA, Hadden WA (2013) A review of mobile bearing unicompartmental knee in patients aged 80 years or older and comparison with younger groups. J Arthroplasty 28:262-267.e262CrossRefPubMed
14.
Kennedy J, Mohammad H, Mellon S, Dodd CAF, Murray DW (2020) Age stratified, matched comparison of unicompartmental and total knee replacement. Knee 27(5):1332–1342CrossRefPubMed
15.
Kennedy JA, Matharu GS, Hamilton TW, Mellon SJ, Murray DW (2018) Age and outcomes of medial meniscal-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 33:3153–3159CrossRefPubMed
16.
Kort NP, van Raay JJ, Cheung J, Jolink C, Deutman R (2007) Analysis of Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement using the minimally invasive technique in patients aged 60 and above: an independent prospective series. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15:1331–1334CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Kort NP, van Raay JJ, van Horn JJ (2007) The Oxford phase III unicompartmental knee replacement in patients less than 60 years of age. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15:356–360CrossRefPubMed
18.
19.
Kristensen PW, Holm HA, Varnum C (2013) Up to 10-year follow-up of the Oxford medial partial knee arthroplasty–695 cases from a single institution. J Arthroplasty 28:195–198CrossRefPubMed
20.
Lee M, Chen J, Shi LuC, Lo NN, Yeo SJ (2019) no differences in outcomes scores or survivorship of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty between patients younger or older than 55 years of age at minimum 10-year followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 477:1434–1446CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Liddle AD, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray DW (2016) Effect of surgical caseload on revision rate following total and unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 98:1–8CrossRefPubMed
22.
Mohammad HR, Bullock GS, Kennedy JA, Mellon SJ, Murray D, Judge A (2021) Cementless unicompartmental knee replacement achieves better ten-year clinical outcomes than cemented: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 29:3229–3245CrossRefPubMed
23.
Mohammad HR, Mellon S, Judge A, Dodd C, Murray D (2021) The effect of age on the outcomes of cementless mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacements. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 30(3):928–938CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 62:1006–1012CrossRefPubMed
25.
Murray DW, Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ (1998) The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80(6):983–989CrossRefPubMed
26.
Murray DW, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, Pandit H, Beard DJ, Carr AJ et al (2007) The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(8):1010–1014CrossRefPubMed
27.
Niinimäki TT, Murray DW, Partanen J, Pajala A, Leppilahti JI (2011) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasties implanted for osteoarthritis with partial loss of joint space have high re-operation rates. Knee 18:432–435CrossRefPubMed
28.
Noble PC, Scuderi GR, Brekke AC, Sikorskii A, Benjamin JB, Lonner JH et al (2012) Development of a new knee society scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:20–32CrossRefPubMed
29.
O’Connor JJ, Goodfellow JW, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2007) Development and clinical application of meniscal unicompartmental arthroplasty. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 221:47–59CrossRefPubMed
30.
31.
32.
Pandit H, Hamilton TW, Jenkins C, Mellon SJ, Dodd CAF, Murray DW (2015) The clinical outcome of minimally invasive Phase 3 Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 97(B11):1493–1499CrossRefPubMed
33.
Pandit H, Jenkins C, Gill HS, Smith G, Price AJ, Dodd CA et al (2011) Unnecessary contraindications for mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93:622–628CrossRefPubMed
34.
Price AJ, Dodd CAF, Svard UGC, Murray DW (2005) Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients younger and older than 60 years of age. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87(11):1488–1492CrossRefPubMed
35.
36.
37.
Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J (2003) Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 73:712–716CrossRefPubMed
38.
StataCorp (2019) Stata Statistical Software: Release 16. College Station TSLAM
39.
Venkatesh HK, Maheswaran SS (2019) Age and body mass index has no adverse effect on clinical outcome of unicompartmental knee replacement—midterm followup study. Indian J Orthop 53:442–445CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Wang B, Sun H, Fu Z, Kang J, Yu X (2021) Application of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Arthroplasty 3:1–7CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Zhang W, Wang J, Li H, Wang W, George DM, Huang T (2020) Fixed- versus mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Sci Rep 10:19075CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Impact of age on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors
Loay A. Salman
Abedallah Abudalou
Harman Khatkar
Ghalib Ahmed
Stephanie G. Dakin
Benjamin Kendrick
David W. Murray
Publication date
05-09-2022
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Issue 3/2023
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-022-07132-x

Other articles of this Issue 3/2023

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 3/2023 Go to the issue

KNEE

The limited use of a tourniquet during total knee arthroplasty under a contemporary enhanced recovery protocol has no meaningful benefit: a prospective randomized controlled trial

KNEE

Highly cross-linked polyethylene versus conventional polyethylene in primary total knee arthroplasty: comparable clinical and radiological results at a 10-year follow-up

Review Paper

Complications and downsides of the robotic total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

KNEE

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients under the age of 60 years provides excellent clinical outcomes and 10-year implant survival: a systematic review

KNEE

A relevant number of patients do not increase their engagement in physical, social and leisure activities at the medium-term after total knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study

KNEE

Joint gap produced by manual stress is dependent on the surgeon’s experience and is smaller in flexion in robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty