Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Excellent survival and outcomes with fixed-bearing medial UKA in young patients (≤ 60 years) at minimum 10-year follow-up

  • KNEE
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate whether long-term (10-year minimum) patient outcomes and survival of fixed-bearing medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) in patients aged  ≤ 60 years were favorable despite non-conventional age criteria.

Methods

The authors reviewed the records of 91 consecutive medial UKAs performed in patients aged ≤ 60 by a single surgeon. All patients received the same fixed-bearing M/G Unicompartmental Knee System. Patients records were updated, noting complications or revisions, and Oxford Knee Scores and overall satisfaction collected. If deceased, the general practitioner or next of kin provided data.

Results

Of the initial 91 knees, 10 were revised, 6 were deceased, and 1 was lost to follow-up. The final cohort of 74 knees was aged 54.3 ± 4.3 years (range 41.8–60.6) at index surgery. Using revision of any component as endpoint, the present series had a KM survival of 92.9% (CI 84.8–96.7%) at 10 years, and 87.8% (CI 78.4–93.2%) at 15 years, and a single non-fatal DVT was reported. At final follow-up of 15 ± 1.3 years (range 11–18), OKS (available for all 74 knees) was 38.4 ± 8.4 (range 18–48). Overall patients were pleased or very pleased with 72 of the knees (97%).

Conclusion

Fixed-bearing medial UKA yields favorable results in the treatment of single compartment osteoarthritis of the knee in patients ≤ 60 years. The present study demonstrates low complication rates, good-to-excellent long-term patient outcomes, and satisfactory implant survival for this age group considering the advantages of UKA.

Level of evidence

Level IV, retrospective cohort study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Arirachakaran A, Choowit P, Putananon C, Muangsiri S, Kongtharvonskul J (2015) Is unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) superior to total knee arthroplasty (TKA)? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 25(5):799–806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Austin PC, Steyerberg EW (2015) The number of subjects per variable required in linear regression analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 68(6):627–636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Beard DJ, Davies LJ, Cook JA, MacLennan G, Price A 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):746–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM, Mahomed NN, Charron KDJ (2010) Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not? Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(1):57–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brown NM, Sheth NP, Davis K, Berend ME, Lombardi AV et al (2012) Total knee arthroplasty has higher postoperative morbidity than unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a multicenter analysis. J Arthroplasty 27(8 Suppl):86–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Burn E, Liddle AD, Hamilton TW, Pai S, Pandit HG et al (2017) Choosing between unicompartmental and total knee replacement: what can economic evaluations tell us? A systematic review. Pharmacoecon Open 1(4):241–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chawla H, van der List JP, Christ AB, Sobrero MR, Zuiderbaan HA et al (2017) Annual revision rates of partial versus total knee arthroplasty: A comparative meta-analysis. Knee 24(2):179–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Clement ND, Weir DJ, Holland J, Deehan DJ (2019) Is there a threshold preoperative womac score that predicts patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty? J Knee Surg

  9. Dyrhovden GS, Lygre SHL, Badawy M, Gothesen O, Furnes O (2017) Have the causes of revision for total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasties changed during the past two decades? Clin Orthop Relat Res 475(7):1874–1886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Felix J, Becker C, Vogl M, Buschner P, Plotz W et al (2019) Patient characteristics and valuation changes impact quality of life and satisfaction in total knee arthroplasty—results from a German prospective cohort study. Health Qual Life Outcomes 17(1):180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Felts E, Parratte S, Pauly V, Aubaniac JM, Argenson JN (2010) Function and quality of life following medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients 60 years of age or younger. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 96(8):861–867

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Goh GS, Bin Abd Razak HR, Tay DK, Chia SL, Lo NN et al (2018) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty achieves greater flexion with no difference in functional outcome, quality of life, and satisfaction vs total knee arthroplasty in patients younger than 55 years. A propensity score-matched cohort analysis. J Arthroplasty 33(2):355–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hamilton TW, Pandit HG, Jenkins C, Mellon SJ, Dodd CAF et al (2017) Evidence-based Indications for mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in a consecutive cohort of thousand knees. J Arthroplasty 32(6):1779–1785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hansen EN, Ong KL, Lau E, Kurtz SM, Lonner JH (2019) Unicondylar knee arthroplasty has fewer complications but higher revision rates than total knee arthroplasty in a study of large united states databases. J Arthroplasty 34(8):1617–1625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Heaps BM, Blevins JL, Chiu YF, Konopka JF, Patel SP et al (2019) Improving estimates of annual survival rates for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 34(7):1538–1545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hefti F, Muller W, Jakob RP, Staubli HU (1993) Evaluation of knee ligament injuries with the IKDC form. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1(3–4):226–234

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Heyse TJ, El-Zayat BF, De Corte R, Chevalier Y, Scheys L et al (2014) UKA closely preserves natural knee kinematics in vitro. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22(8):1902–1910

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Heyse TJ, Khefacha A, Peersman G, Cartier P (2012) Survivorship of UKA in the middle-aged. Knee 19(5):585–591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hurst JM, Berend KR (2014) Mobile-bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasty: the Oxford experience. Clin Sports Med 33(1):105–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kleeblad LJ, van der List JP, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD (2018) Larger range of motion and increased return to activity, but higher revision rates following unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in patients under 65: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26(6):1811–1822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kozinn SC, Marx C, Scott RD (1989) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. A 4.5-6-year follow-up study with a metal-backed tibial component. J Arthroplasty 4:S1–S10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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(6):1434–1446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Liddle AD, Judge A, Pandit H, Murray DW (2014) Adverse outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee replacement in 101,330 matched patients: a study of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet 384(9952):1437–1445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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):1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lyons MC, MacDonald SJ, Somerville LE, Naudie DD, McCalden RW (2012) Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty database analysis: is there a winner? Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(1):84–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mohammad HR, Strickland L, Hamilton TW, Murray DW (2018) Long-term outcomes of over 8,000 medial Oxford Phase 3 Unicompartmental Knees-a systematic review. Acta Orthop 89(1):101–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Niinimaki T, Eskelinen A, Makela K, Ohtonen P, Puhto AP et al (2014) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty survivorship is lower than TKA survivorship: a 27-year Finnish registry study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472(5):1496–1501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. NJR (2016) National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. vol 13. Annual report National Joint Registry

  29. Pandit H, Jenkins C, Gill HS, Smith G, Price AJ et al (2011) Unnecessary contraindications for mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(5):622–628

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Pennington DW, Swienckowski JJ, Lutes WB, Drake GN (2003) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients sixty years of age or younger. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85(10):1968–1973

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Schai PA, Suh JT, Thornhill TS, Scott RD (1998) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in middle-aged patients: a 2- to 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty 13(4):365–372

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Swienckowski JJ, Pennington DW (2004) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients sixty years of age or younger. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86(1):131–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. van der List JP, Kleeblad LJ, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD (2017) Mid-term outcomes of metal-backed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty show superiority to all-polyethylene unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty. HSS J 13(3):232–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. van der List JP, Sheng DL, Kleeblad LJ, Chawla H, Pearle AD (2017) Outcomes of cementless unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Knee 24(3):497–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Wilson HA, Middleton R, Abram SGF, Smith S, Alvand A et al (2019) Patient relevant outcomes of unicompartmental versus total knee replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 364:l352

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Harrogate and District NHS Foundation Trust, Harrogate, UK

    Ashim Mannan, Richard W. D. Pilling, Katy Mason, David Duffy & Nick London

  2. ReSurg SA, Rue Saint-Jean 22, 1260, Nyon, Switzerland

    Patrick Stirling

  3. Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK

    Nick London

Authors
  1. Ashim Mannan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard W. D. Pilling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katy Mason
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Patrick Stirling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. David Duffy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nick London
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrick Stirling.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

PS declares consulting fees from ReSurg SA. DD declares a consultancy contract for teaching with Zimmer Biomet. NL declares a consultancy contract for teaching and development with Zimmer Biomet. NL receives royalties from Zimmer Biomet. AM, RP, and KM certify that they have no commercial associations that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.

Funding

The authors are grateful to the Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics at Harrogate District Foundation Trust for funding the data collection, statistical analysis and manuscript preparation for this study.

Ethical approval

All patients provided informed consent for the use of their data for research and publications and the institutional review board approval was, therefore, not required for this study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mannan, A., Pilling, R.W.D., Mason, K. et al. Excellent survival and outcomes with fixed-bearing medial UKA in young patients (≤ 60 years) at minimum 10-year follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 28, 3865–3870 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-05870-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-05870-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation