Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Journey-Deuce bicompartmental knee arthroplasty with the addition of computer navigation achieves good clinical outcomes and implant survival at 10 years

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

Abstract

Purpose

To report 10-year outcomes and survivorship in patients undergoing bicompartmental knee arthroplasty (BCKA) using the Journey-Deuce prosthesis in a consecutive prospective case series.

Methods

Between November 2006 and November 2009, 41 patients with a mean age of 69.6 years (range 51–86) underwent 51 bicompartmental knee arthroplasties with the Journey-Deuce knee prosthesis. All patients presented with symptomatic medial and patellofemoral compartment osteoarthritis, with intact cruciate ligaments and a preserved lateral compartment on plain radiographs and Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Clinical assessment was undertaken pre-surgery and at 1, 2, 5 and 10 years post-surgery using the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), EuroQol Group 5-Dimension self-reported questionnaire (EQ-5D) and maximal active range of motion (ROM).

Results

30 patients (37 knees) were followed-up at a mean time of 11.4 years (SD 1.1; range 10.5–14.0). Eight patients (ten knees) were deceased and three could not be contacted at final review. No major component revision was performed. Pre-operative OKS 25.4 (SD 5.2; range 15–40), knee flexion 116.4° (SD 10.3°; range 100°–140°) and EQ-5D 70.5 (SD 19.9; range 25–95). 10-year OKS 43.5 (SD 4.1; range 32–48), knee flexion 127.3° (SD 11.1°; range 105°–144°) and EQ-5D 77.4 (SD 9.3; range 60–100). The OKS (p < 0.0001), EQ-5D (p = 0.024) and active knee flexion ROM (p < 0.0001) all significantly improved from pre-surgery to 1-year post-surgery, with no further significant changes in these scores between any post-operative time period up until 10 years. 32% (7/22) of tibial and 45% (10/22) of femoral components showed progressive radiolucencies between 2 and 5-year and 10-year follow-up.

Conclusions

This is the largest cohort of patients having undergone BCKA (with the Journey-Deuce prosthesis) with longest follow-up described in the literature. At 10 years, patients presented with significantly improved clinical outcomes, comparable to other surgical arthroplasty options. No major component revision was performed. Progressive radiolucencies were noted in 32% of tibial and 45% of femoral components without corresponding clinical signs of loosening.

Level of evidence

Level III.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Adams AJ, Kazarian GS, Lonner JH (2017) Preoperative patellofemoral chondromalacia is not a contraindication for fixed-bearing medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 32:1786–1791

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Barrack RL, Barnes CL, Burnett RSJ, Miller D, Clohisy JC, Maloney WJ (2009) Minimal incision surgery as a risk factor for early failure of total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 24:489–498

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Beard DJ, Pandit H, Gill HS, Hollinghurst D, Dodd CAF, Murray DW (2007) 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 Jt Surg Br 89:1597–1601

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Berger RA, Nedeff DD, Barden RM, Sheinkop MM, Jacobs JJ, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO (1999) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: clinical experience at 6- to 10-year followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 367:50–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Berger Y, Ftaita S, Thienpont E (2019) Does medial patellofemoral osteoarthritis influence outcome scores and risk of revision after fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 477:2041

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Bouché P-A, Corsia S, Nizard R, Resche-Rigon M (2020) Comparative efficacy of the different surgical approaches in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic-review and network meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 36(3):1187–1194

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Clement ND, MacDonald D, Simpson A (2014) The minimal clinically important difference in the oxford knee score and short form 12 score after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22:1933–1939

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A (1998) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Jt Surg Br 80:63–69

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Devers BN, Conditt MA, Jamieson ML, Driscoll MD, Noble PC, Parsley BS (2011) Does greater knee flexion increase patient function and satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty 26:178–186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dudhniwala AG, Rath NK, Joshy S, Forster MC, White SP (2016) Early failure with the Journey-Deuce bicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 26:517–521

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gandhi R, Smith H, Lefaivre KA, Davey JR, Mahomed NN (2011) Complications after minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty as compared with traditional incision techniques: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 26:29–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Grassi A, Compagnoni R, Ferrua P, Zaffagnini S, Berruto M, Samuelsson K, Svantesson E, Randelli P (2018) Patellar resurfacing versus patellar retention in primary total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26:3206–3218

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gulati A, Chau R, Pandit HG, Gray H, Price AJ, Dodd CAF, Murray DW (2009) The incidence of physiological radiolucency following Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement and its relationship to outcome. J Bone Jt Surg Br 91:896–902

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Heekin RD, Fokin AA (2014) Incidence of bicompartmental osteoarthritis in patients undergoing total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is the time ripe for a less radical treatment? J Knee Surg 27:077–082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Huddleston JI, Wiley JW, Scott RD (2005) Zone 4 femoral radiolucent lines in hybrid versus cemented total knee arthroplasties: are they clinically significant? Clin Orthop Relat Res 441:334–339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kang S-N, Smith TO, De Rover WS, Walton NP (2011) Pre-operative patellofemoral degenerative changes do not affect the outcome after medial Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement: a report from an independent centre. J Bone Jt Surg Br 93:476–478

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 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 26:1811–1822

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kuipers BM, Kollen BJ, Bots PCK, Burger BJ, van Raay JJ, Tulp NJ, Verheyen CC (2010) Factors associated with reduced early survival in the Oxford phase III medial unicompartment knee replacement. Knee 17:48–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lim JW-A, Chen JY, Chong HC, Pang HN, Tay DKJ, Chia S-L, Lo NN, Yeo SJ (2019) Pre-existing patellofemoral disease does not affect 10-year survivorship in fixed bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27:2030–2036

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mikkelsen M, Gao A, Ingelsrud LH, Beard D, Troelsen A, Price A (2021) Categorization of changes in the oxford knee score after total knee replacement: an interpretive tool developed from a data set of 46,094 replacements. J Clin Epidemiol 132:18–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mohammad HR, Strickland L, Hamilton TW, Murray DW (2018) Long-term outcomes of over 8000 medial Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knees—a systematic review. Acta Orthop 89:101–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Morrison TA, Nyce JD, Macaulay WB, Geller JA (2011) Early adverse results with bicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort comparison to total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 26:35–39

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Müller M, Matziolis G, Falk R, Hommel H (2012) The bicompartmental knee joint prosthesis Journey Deuce: failure analysis and optimization strategies. Orthopade 41:894–904

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Palumbo BT, Henderson ER, Edwards PK, Burris RB, Gutiérrez S, Raterman SJ (2011) Initial experience of the Journey-Deuce bicompartmental knee prosthesis: a review of 36 cases. J Arthroplasty 26:40–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Parratte S, Pauly V, Aubaniac J-M, Argenson J-NA (2010) Survival of bicompartmental knee arthroplasty at 5 to 23 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:64–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Petersen CL, Kjærsgaard JB, Kjærgaard N, Jensen MU, Laursen MB (2017) Thresholds for oxford knee score after total knee replacement surgery: a novel approach to post-operative evaluation. J Orthop Surg 12:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Pinedo-Villanueva R, Khalid S, Wylde V, Gooberman-Hill R, Soni A, Judge A (2018) Identifying individuals with chronic pain after knee replacement: a population-cohort, cluster-analysis of Oxford knee scores in 128,145 patients from the English National Health Service. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 19:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ranawat CS, Ranawat AS, Mehta A (2003) Total knee arthroplasty rehabilitation protocol: what makes the difference? J Arthroplasty 18:27–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rolston L, Bresch J, Engh G, Franz A, Kreuzer S, Nadaud M, Puri L, Wood D (2007) Bicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a bone-sparing, ligament-sparing, and minimally invasive alternative for active patients. Orthopedics 30:70

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rolston L, Siewert K (2009) Assessment of knee alignment after bicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 24:1111–1114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Rowe PJ, Myles CM, Walker C, Nutton R (2000) Knee joint kinematics in gait and other functional activities measured using flexible electrogoniometry: how much knee motion is sufficient for normal daily life? Gait Posture 12:143–155

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Shah SM, Dutton AQ, Liang S, Dasde S (2013) Bicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty for medio-patellofemoral osteoarthritis: a comparison of early clinical and functional outcomes. J Knee Surg 26:411–416

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Smith TO, King JJ, Hing CB (2012) A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing the clinical and radiological outcomes following minimally invasive to conventional exposure for total knee arthroplasty. Knee 19:1–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Song E-K, Park J-K, Park C-H, Kim M-C, Agrawal PR, Seon JK (2016) No difference in anterior knee pain after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients with or without patellofemoral osteoarthritis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24:208–213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Staats K, Wannmacher T, Weihs V, Koller U, Kubista B, Windhager R (2019) Modern cemented total knee arthroplasty design shows a higher incidence of radiolucent lines compared to its predecessor. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27:1148–1155

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Stuyts B, Vandenberghe M, Van der Bracht H, Fortems Y, Van den Eeden E, Cuypers L (2015) Fracture of the tibial baseplate in bicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Case Rep Orthop 2015:693025

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Tan SM, Dutton AQ, Bea KC, Kumar VP (2013) Bicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty for medial and patellofemoral osteoarthritis. J Orthop Surg 21:281–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Temple MM, Bae WC, Chen MQ, Lotz M, Amiel D, Coutts RD, Sah RL (2007) Age-and site-associated biomechanical weakening of human articular cartilage of the femoral condyle. Osteoarthr Cartil 15:1042–1052

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Tew M, Forster IW, Wallace WA (1989) Effect of total knee arthroplasty on maximal flexion. Clin Orthop Relat Res 247:168–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Wang H, Dugan E, Frame J, Rolston L (2009) Gait analysis after bi-compartmental knee replacement. Clin Biomech 24:751–754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Williams DP, Blakey CM, Hadfield SG, Murray DW, Price AJ, Field RE (2013) Long-term trends in the Oxford knee score following total knee replacement. Bone Jt J 95:45–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Yamabe E, Ueno T, Miyagi R, Watanabe A, Guenzi C, Yoshioka H (2013) Study of surgical indication for knee arthroplasty by cartilage analysis in three compartments using data from osteoarthritis initiative (OAI). BMC Musculoskelet Disord 14:194

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Smith and Nephew Provided a grant for Data Collection, Imaging and Educational Support of this Project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fiona Stanley Fremantle Hospitals Group, Perth, WA, Australia

    Randeep S. Aujla, Michael Finsterwald, Christopher W. Jones, Piers Yates & Peter D’Alessandro

  2. HFRC Rehabilitation Clinic, 117 Stirling Highway, Nedlands, WA, 6009, Australia

    Jennifer Woodhouse & Jay R. Ebert

  3. School of Human Sciences (Exercise and Sport Science), University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia

    Jay R. Ebert

  4. School of Surgery (Orthopaedics), University of Western Australia, Crawley, Perth, WA, 6009, Australia

    Piers Yates, Peter D’Alessandro & David J. Wood

  5. Orthopaedic Research Foundation of Western Australia, Alma St, Fremantle, Perth, WA, Australia

    Randeep S. Aujla, Jay R. Ebert, Michael Finsterwald, Christopher W. Jones, Piers Yates & Peter D’Alessandro

Authors
  1. Randeep S. Aujla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jennifer Woodhouse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jay R. Ebert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael Finsterwald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christopher W. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Piers Yates
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Peter D’Alessandro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. David J. Wood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JW: data collection, manuscript writing, manuscript review; RSA: radiological review, data analysis, manuscript writing, manuscript review; JRE: data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing, manuscript review; MF: radiological review, data analysis, manuscript review; CWJ: inception, assistant surgeon, manuscript review and editing; PY: inception, assistant surgeon, manuscript review and editing; PD: inception, assistant surgeon, data collection, manuscript review; DJW: inception, lead surgeon, manuscript review.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Randeep S. Aujla.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Each author certifies that he or she has no commercial associations (eg, consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.

Ethical approval

Ethics approval was obtained by the Hollywood Private Hospital (HPH241).

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

Aujla, R.S., Woodhouse, J., Ebert, J.R. et al. Journey-Deuce bicompartmental knee arthroplasty with the addition of computer navigation achieves good clinical outcomes and implant survival at 10 years. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 30, 3168–3175 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06579-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06579-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation