Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Long-term outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients requiring high flexion: an average 10-year follow-up study

  • Knee Arthroplasty
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

To evaluate the long-term survival of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) in the Asian population and assess differences in clinical outcomes between mobile- and fixed-bearing UKA.

Materials and methods

Among 111 cases of UKA that were performed by 1 surgeon from January 2002 to December 2009, we retrospectively reviewed 96 cases (36 mobile-bearing, 62 fixed-bearing) for this study. We examined cause of revision or failure, type of reoperation/revision, and duration from the surgery date to the revision upon reviewing the medical record. Survival analysis was conducted using the Kaplan–Meier method. Functional outcomes were evaluated based on range of motion and patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) for cases with at least 8 years of follow-up (average, 10.2 years).

Results

Overall, the 10-year survival was 88% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81–0.95], and the estimated mean survival time was 13.4 years (95% CI 12.5–14.2). In a comparison of survival between the mobile- and fixed-bearing groups, the former had a 10-year survival of 85% (95% CI, 0.72–0.97) and an estimated mean survival time of 13.5 years (95% CI 12.2–14.7) and the latter had a 10-year survival of 90% (95% CI 0.82–0.99) and an estimated mean survival time of 13.4 years (95% CI 12.3–14.4). Thus, there was no significant difference in survival between the two groups (log-rank test, p = 0.718). In addition, no significant difference in functional outcomes was observed between the two groups (p > 0.05 for all).

Conclusions

UKA performed in the Asian population showed a relatively good functional outcome and survival rate at an average 10-year follow-up. No difference in survival and PROs was observed according to the bearing type. Although the present study demonstrated a good survival rate, similar to that in other Western studies, further studies investigating the impact of the Asian lifestyle on the long-term survival of UKA is necessary.

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
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Murray DW, Goodfellow JW, O'Connor JJ (1998) The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a ten-year survival study. J Bone Jt Surg Br 80(6):983–989

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Svard UC, Price AJ (2001) Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. A survival analysis of an independent series. J Bone Jt Surg Br 83(2):191–194

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Berger RA, Meneghini RM, Jacobs JJ, Sheinkop MB, Della Valle CJ, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO (2005) Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum of ten years of follow-up. J Bone Jt Surg Am 87(5):999–1006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cartier P, Sanouiller JL, Grelsamer RP (1996) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty surgery. 10-year minimum follow-up period. J Arthroplasty 11(7):782–788

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Foran JR, Brown NM, Della Valle CJ, Berger RA, Galante JO (2013) Long-term survivorship and failure modes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(1):102–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Saragaglia D, Bevand A, Refaie R, Rubens-Duval B, Pailhe R (2018) Results with nine years mean follow up on one hundred and three KAPS(R) uni knee arthroplasties: eighty six medial and seventeen lateral. Int Orthop 42(5):1061–1066

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Scott CEH, Wade FA, MacDonald D, Nutton RW (2018) Ten-year survival and patient-reported outcomes of a medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty incorporating an all-polyethylene tibial component. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138(5):719–729

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Ozcan C, Simsek ME, Tahta M, Akkaya M, Gursoy S, Bozkurt M (2018) Fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty tolerates higher variance in tibial implant rotation than mobile-bearing designs. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138(10):1463–1469

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Emerson RH Jr, Hansborough T, Reitman RD, Rosenfeldt W, Higgins LL (2002) Comparison of a mobile with a fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee implant. Clin Orthop Relat Res 404:62–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Koskinen E, Eskelinen A, Paavolainen P, Pulkkinen P, Remes V (2008) Comparison of survival and cost-effectiveness between unicondylar arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty in patients with primary osteoarthritis: a follow-up study of 50,493 knee replacements from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 79(4):499–507

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Parratte S, Pauly V, Aubaniac JM, Argenson JN (2012) No long-term difference between fixed and mobile medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(1):61–68

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ko YB, Gujarathi MR, Oh KJ (2015) Outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of comparative studies between fixed and mobile bearings focusing on complications. Knee Surg Relat Res 27(3):141–148

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Cho WJ, Kim JM, Kim WK, Kim DE, Kim NK, Bin SI (2018) Mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in old-aged patients demonstrates superior short-term clinical outcomes to open-wedge high tibial osteotomy in middle-aged patients with advanced isolated medial osteoarthritis. Int Orthop 42(10):2357–2363

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ha CW, Park YB, Song YS, Kim JH, Park YG (2016) Increased range of motion is important for functional outcome and satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty in Asian patients. J Arthroplasty 31(6):1199–1203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ohno H, Murata M, Ozu S, Matsuoka N, Kawamura H, Iida H (2016) Midterm outcomes of high-flexion total knee arthroplasty on Japanese lifestyle. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 50(5):527–532

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Watanabe T, Muneta T, Koga H, Horie M, Nakamura T, Otabe K, Nakagawa Y, Katakura M, Sekiya I (2016) In-vivo kinematics of high-flex posterior-stabilized total knee prosthesis designed for Asian populations. Int Orthop 40(11):2295–2302

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Paterson NR, Teeter MG, MacDonald SJ, McCalden RW, Naudie DD (2013) The 2012 Mark Coventry award: a retrieval analysis of high flexion versus posterior-stabilized tibial inserts. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(1):56–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Han HS, Kang SB, Yoon KS (2007) High incidence of loosening of the femoral component in legacy posterior stabilised-flex total knee replacement. J Bone Jt Surg Br 89(11):1457–1461

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Namba RS, Inacio MC, Cafri G (2014) Increased risk of revision for high flexion total knee replacement with thicker tibial liners. Bone Jt J 96-B(2):217–223

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Cho KY, Kim KI, Song SJ, Kim KJ (2018) Intentionally increased flexion angle of the femoral component in mobile bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res 30(1):23–27

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS (1957) Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis 16(4):494–502

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Kim CW, Seo SS, Lee CR, Gwak HC, Kim JH, Jung SG (2017) Factors affecting articular cartilage repair after open-wedge high tibial osteotomy. Knee 24(5):1099–1107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tibrewal SB, Grant KA, Goodfellow JW (1984) The radiolucent line beneath the tibial components of the Oxford meniscal knee. J Bone Jt Surg Br 66(4):523–528

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD (1998) Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)—development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 28(2):88–96

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ernstbrunner L, Imam MA, Andronic O, Perz T, Wieser K, Fucentese SF (2018) Lateral unicompartmental knee replacement: a systematic review of reasons for failure. Int Orthop 42(8):1827–1833

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bin Abd Razak HR, Acharyya S, Tan SM, Pang HN, Tay KD, Chia SL, Lo NN, Yeo SJ (2017) Predictors of midterm outcomes after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in Asians. Clin Orthop Surg 9(4):432–438

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Canetti R, Batailler C, Bankhead C, Neyret P, Servien E, Lustig S (2018) Faster return to sport after robotic-assisted lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a comparative study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138(12):1765–1771

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Herry Y, Batailler C, Lording T, Servien E, Neyret P, Lustig S (2017) Improved joint-line restitution in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using a robotic-assisted surgical technique. Int Orthop 41(11):2265–2271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Saragaglia D, Marques Da Silva B, Dijoux P, Cognault J, Gaillot J, Pailhe R (2017) Computerised navigation of unicondylar knee prostheses: from primary implantation to revision to total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 41(2):293–299

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Xue H, Tu Y, Ma T, Wen T, Yang T, Cai M (2017) Up to twelve year follow-up of the Oxford phase three unicompartmental knee replacement in China: seven hundred and eight knees from an independent centre. Int Orthop 41(8):1571–1577

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Riddle DL, Jiranek WA, McGlynn FJ (2008) Yearly incidence of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the United States. J Arthroplasty 23(3):408–412

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. van der List JP, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD (2016) Why do medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties fail today? J Arthroplasty 31(5):1016–1021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ro KH, Heo JW, Lee DH (2018) Bearing dislocation and progression of osteoarthritis after mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty vary between asian and western patients: a meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 476(5):946–960

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Kim KT, Lee S, Lee JS, Kang MS, Koo KH (2018) Long-term clinical results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients younger than 60 years of age: minimum 10-year follow-up. Knee Surg Relat Res 30(1):28–33

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Daines SB, Koch CN, Haas SB, Westrich GH, Wright TM (2017) Does achieving high flexion increase polyethylene damage in posterior-stabilized knees? A retrieval study. J Arthroplasty 32(1):274–279

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kim YH, Park JW, Kim JS (2012) High-flexion total knee arthroplasty: survivorship and prevalence of osteolysis: results after a minimum of ten years of follow-up. J Bone Jt Surg Am 94(15):1378–1384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lee BS, Chung JW, Kim JM, Kim KA, Bin SI (2013) High-flexion prosthesis improves function of TKA in Asian patients without decreasing early survivorship. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(5):1504–1511

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Argenson JN, Komistek RD, Aubaniac JM, Dennis DA, Northcut EJ, Anderson DT, Agostini S (2002) In vivo determination of knee kinematics for subjects implanted with a unicompartmental arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 17(8):1049–1054

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Cheng T, Chen D, Zhu C, Pan X, Mao X, Guo Y, Zhang X (2013) Fixed- versus mobile-bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasty: are failure modes different? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21(11):2433–2441

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Sathasivam S, Walker PS, Campbell PA, Rayner K (2001) The effect of contact area on wear in relation to fixed bearing and mobile bearing knee replacements. J Biomed Mater Res 58(3):282–290

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Haeundae Bumin Hospital, 584, Haeundae-ro, Haeundae-gu, Busan, 48094, Republic of Korea

    Seung-Suk Seo & Chang-Kyu Kim

  2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Bumin Hospital, 59, Mandeok-daero, Buk-gu, Busan, 46555, Republic of Korea

    Ok-Gul Kim

  3. Department of Pharmacology, Inje University College of Medicine, 75, Bokji-ro, Busanjin-gu, Busan, 47392, Republic of Korea

    Minkyung Oh

  4. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Inje University Busan Paik Hospital, 75, Bokji-ro, Busanjin-gu, Busan, 47392, Republic of Korea

    Chang-Wan Kim, Chang-Rack Lee & Yong-Uk Kwon

Authors
  1. Seung-Suk Seo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chang-Wan Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chang-Rack Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yong-Uk Kwon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Minkyung Oh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ok-Gul Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Chang-Kyu Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chang-Rack Lee.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Informed consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board in our institution (Inje University Busan Paik Hospital, IRB No. 18-0059).

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

Seo, SS., Kim, CW., Lee, CR. et al. Long-term outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients requiring high flexion: an average 10-year follow-up study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 139, 1633–1639 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-019-03268-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-019-03268-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation