Top

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Outcomes and early revision rate after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: prospective results from a non-designer single surgeon

Authors: Jonathan R. B. Hutt, Avtar Sur, Hartej Sur, Aine Ringrose, Mark S. Rickman

Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Issue 1/2018

Abstract

Background

This prospective study evaluates outcomes and reoperation rates for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) from a single non-designer surgeon using relatively extended criteria of degenerative changes of grade 2 or above in either or both non-operated compartments.

Methods

187 consecutive medial mobile bearing UKA implants were included after history, clinical assessment and radiological evaluation. 91 patients had extended clinical outcomes. Post-operative assessment included functional scoring with the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and radiographic review. Survivorship curves were constructed using the life-table method, with 95% confidence intervals calculated using Rothman’s equation. Separate endpoints were examined: revision for any reason and revision for confirmed loosening.

Results

The mean follow-up was 3.5 years. The pre-operative OKS improved from a mean of 21.2 to 38.9 (Mann-Whitney U Test, p = < 0.001). Twelve Patients required further operations including 9 revisions. No patients developed deep infection and no surviving implants were loose radiographically. Survivorship at 7 years with endpoints of re-operation, revision and aseptic loosening at surgery or radiographically was 88.4% (95% CI 79.6–93.7), 93.1% (95% CI 85.5–96.9) and 97.3% (95% CI 91.2–99.2) respectively. The presence of pre-operative mild contralateral tibiofemoral or any extent of patellofemoral joint degeneration was of no consequence.

Discussion

The indications for UKA are being expanded to include patients with greater deformity, more advanced disease in the patellofemoral joint and even certain features in the lateral compartment indicative of an anteromedial pattern of osteoarthritis (OA). However, much of the supporting literature remains available only from designer centres. This study represents a group of patients with what we believe to be wider indications, along with decisions to treat made on clinical grounds and radiographs alone.

Conclusion

This study shows comparable clinical outcomes of UKA for extended indications from a high volume, high-usage non-designer unit.

Available only for authorised users

Pandit H, Hamilton TW, Jenkins C, et al. The clinical outcome of minimally invasive phase 3 Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a 15-year follow-up of 1000 UKAs. Bone Jt J. 2015;97-B(11):1493–500. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B11.35634.CrossRef

Weston-Simons JS, Pandit H, Kendrick BJL, et al. The mid-term outcomes of the Oxford domed lateral unicompartmental knee replacement. Bone Jt J. 2014;96:59–64.CrossRef

Beard DJ, Pandit H, Gill HS, et al. The influence of the presence and severity of pre-existing patellofemoral degenerative changes on the outcome of the Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:1597–601. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.89B12.19259.CrossRefPubMed

Kendrick BJL, Rout R, Bottomley NJ, et al. The implications of damage to the lateral femoral condyle on medial unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92:374–9. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.92B3.23561.CrossRefPubMed

Murray DW, Pandit H, Weston-Simons JS, et al. Does body mass index affect the outcome of unicompartmental knee replacement? Knee. 2013;20:461–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2012.09.017.CrossRefPubMed

Emerson RH, Alnachoukati O, Barrington J, Ennin K. The results of Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the United States: a mean ten-year survival analysis. Bone Joint J. 2016;98-B(10 Supple B):34–40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Hamilton TW, Rizkalla JM, Kontochristos L, et al. The interaction of caseload and usage in determining outcomes of Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplast. 2017;32(10):3228–37.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.04.063.CrossRef

Streit MR, Walker T, Bruckner T, et al. Mobile-bearing lateral unicompartmental knee replacement with the Oxford domed tibial component: an independent series. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94:1356–61.CrossRefPubMed

Yoshida K, Tada M, Yoshida H, et al. Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in Japan--clinical results in greater than one thousand cases over ten years. J Arthroplast. 2013;28:168–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.08.019.CrossRef

10.

Lyons MC, MacDonald SJ, Somerville LE, et al. Unicompartmental versus Total knee arthroplasty database analysis: is there a winner? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:84–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-2144-z.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Kort NP, van Raay JJAM, Cheung J, et al. 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 Off J ESSKA. 2007;15:1331–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-007-0397-6.CrossRef

12.

Mercier N, Wimsey S, Saragaglia D. Long-term clinical results of the Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2010;34:1137–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-009-0869-z.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Schroer WC, Barnes CL, Diesfeld P, et al. The Oxford Unicompartmental knee fails at a high rate in a high-volume knee practice. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:3533–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-3174-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Zermatten P, Munzinger U. The Oxford II medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: an independent 10-year survival study. Acta Orthop Belg. 2012;78:203–9.PubMed

15.

NZ Joint Registry. https://nzoa.org.nz/nz-joint-registry. Accessed 4 Aug 2014.

16.

UK National Joint Registry. http://www.njrcentre.org.uk/njrcentre/default.aspx. Accessed 25 July 2014.

17.

Australian National Joint Registry. https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/en. Accessed 25 July 2014.

18.

Labek G, Sekyra K, Pawelka W, et al. Outcome and reproducibility of data concerning the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a structured literature review including arthroplasty registry data. Acta Orthop. 2011;82:131–5. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2011.566134.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ, Murray DW. A critique of revision rate as an outcome measure: re-interpretation of knee joint registry data. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92:1628–31. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.92B12.25193.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Konan S, Haddad FS. Joint registries: a Ptolemaic model of data interpretation? Bone Jt J. 2013;95-B:1585–6. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.95B12.33353.CrossRef

21.

Liddle AD, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray DW. Optimal usage of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study of 41,986 cases from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Bone Jt J. 2015;97-B(11):1506–11. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B11.35551.CrossRef

22.

Liddle AD, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray DW. Effect of surgical caseload on revision rate following Total and Unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.N.00487.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Oxford Knee Operative Technique. http://www.biomet.se/resource/17723/Oxford%20ST.pdf. Accessed 25 July 2014.

24.

Carr AJ, Morris RW, Murray DW, Pynsent PB. Survival analysis in joint replacement surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75:178–82.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Rothman KJ. Estimation of confidence limits for the cumulative probability of survival in life table analysis. J Chronic Dis. 1978;31:557–60.CrossRefPubMed

26.

White SH, Roberts S, Jones PW. The twin peg Oxford partial knee replacement: the first 100 cases. Knee. 2012;19:36–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2010.12.006.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Pandit H, Jenkins C, Gill HS, et al. Minimally invasive Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee replacement RESULTS OF 1000 CASES. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93:198–204.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Furnes O, Espehaug B, Lie SA, et al. Failure mechanisms after unicompartmental and tricompartmental primary knee replacement with cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:519–25. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00210.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Jamsen E, Furnes O, Engesaeter LB, et al. Prevention of deep infection in joint replacement surgery. Acta Orthop. 2010;81:660–6. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2010.537805.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Beard D, Price A, Cook J, et al. Total or partial knee arthroplasty trial-TOPKAT: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2013;14:292.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Rees JL, Price AJ, Beard DJ, et al. Minimally invasive Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: functional results at 1 year and the effect of surgical inexperience. Knee. 2004;11:363–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2003.12.006.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Hamilton WG, Ammeen D, Engh Jr CA, Engh GA. Learning curve with minimally invasive Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2010;25:735–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2009.05.011.CrossRef

33.

Robertsson O, Knutson K, Lewold S, Lidgren L. The routine of surgical management reduces failure after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83:45–9.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Badawy M, Espehaug B, Indrekvam K, et al. Higher revision risk for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in low-volume hospitals. Acta Orthop. 2014;85:342–7. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2014.920990.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Labek G, Thaler M, Janda W, et al. Revision rates after total joint replacement. Cumulative results from Worldwide Joint Register Datasets. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93-B:293–7. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.93B3.25467.CrossRef

Title: Outcomes and early revision rate after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: prospective results from a non-designer single surgeon
Authors: Jonathan R. B. Hutt
Avtar Sur
Hartej Sur
Aine Ringrose
Mark S. Rickman
Publication date: 01-12-2018
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2474
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-2099-2

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Outcomes and early revision rate after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: prospective results from a non-designer single surgeon

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Self-reported functional recovery after reconstruction versus repair in acute anterior cruciate ligament rupture (ROTOR): a randomized controlled clinical trial

An update on the prevalence of low back pain in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analyses

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with quadriceps tendon-patellar bone allograft: matched case control study

Effects of erythropoietin for precaution of steroid-induced femoral head necrosis in rats

Reliability and validity of a novel Kinect-based software program for measuring posture, balance and side-bending

Individuals with mild-to-moderate hip osteoarthritis have lower limb muscle strength and volume deficits