Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Outcomes of cementless fixation in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: review of recent literature

  • Review
  • Published:
MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is considered the most effective treatment for anteromedial knee osteoarthritis. Cementless fixation of UKA was developed to reduce aseptic loosening. We performed a review of the recent literature to assess the latest outcomes of cementless UKA.

Methods

A review of English literature was performed on Medline through Pubmed. Retrospective or prospective studies with at least 2 years of follow-up (FU) and at least 20 patients were included. The PRISMA 2009 flowchart and checklist were considered to edit the review. Survival rate, revision rate, time for revision, incidence of radiolucent lines and reasons for revision (such as aseptic loosening, osteoarthritis progression, bearing dislocation or periprosthetic fracture) were extrapolated from the papers.

Results

Nineteen articles were included in the review, only 2 with a level of evidence of I. A total of 3432 UKA with a FU range of 24–132 months were analyzed. The studies showed good clinical and functional outcomes. In 12 studies, survival rate were more than 90%. Revision rate for aseptic loosening were lower than 2% for 15 studies.

Conclusion

Cementless UKA represents a surgical option allowing low revision rate. Further high-quality long-term studies would better clarify complications, clinical and radiological results of this promising fixation method.

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. National Joint Registry for England and Wales 16th Annual Report (2019)

  2. Insall J, Walker P (1976) Unicondylar knee replacement. Clin Orthop 120:83–85

    Google Scholar 

  3. Insall J, Aglietti P (1980) A five to seven-year follow-up of unicondylar arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 62(8):1329–1337

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. New Zealand Orthopaedic Association: New Zealand Joint Registry: Fourteen Year Report (January 1999 to December 2012). www.nzoa.org.nz. Accessed 09 June 2015

  5. Murray DW, Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ (1998) The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a ten-year survival study. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 80-B:983–989

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kozinn SC, Scott RD (1989) Current con- cepts review: unicondylar knee arthro- plasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 71:145–149

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Luscombe KL, Lim J, Jones PW (2007) Minimally invasive Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. A note of caution! Int Orthop 31(3):321–324

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hauptmann SM, Weber P, Glaser C, Birkenmaier C, Jansson V (2008) Müller PE Free bone cement fragments after minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: an underappreciated problem. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16(8):770–775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-008-0563-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Scheele CB, Pietschmann MF, Schröder C, Suren C, Grupp TM, Müller PE (2019) Impact of a double-layer cementing technique on the homogeneity of cementation and the generation of loose bone cement fragments in tibial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 20:539. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-019-2929-x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Gulati A, Chau R, Pandit HG, Gray H, Price AJ, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2009) The incidence of physiological radiolucency following Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement and its relationship to outcome. J Bone Joint Surg 91(7):896–902. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.91b7.21914

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Pandit HG, Campi S, Hamilton TW, Dada OD, Pollalis S, Jenkins C, Dodd CAF, Murray DW (2017) Five-year experience of cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25(3):694–702. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3879-y

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kerens B, Schotanus MGM, Boonen B, Boog P, Emans PJ, Lacroix H, Kort NP (2017) Cementless versus cemented Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: early results of a non-designer user group. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25(3):703–709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4149-3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bruni D, Zaffagnini S, Iacono F, Bragonzoni L, Lo Presti M, Neri MP, Muccioli GM, Nitri M, Raspugli G, Marcacci M (2016) High rate of implant loosening for uncemented resurfacing-type medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24(10):3175–3182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Van der List JP, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD (2016) Why do medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties fail today? J Arthroplasty 31(5):1016–1021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.11.030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lombardi AV Jr, Berend KR, Adams JB (2014) Why knee replacements fail in 2013: patient, surgeon, or implant? Bone Joint J 96-b:101–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cawley DT, Kelly N, McGarry JP, Shannon FJ (2013) Cementing techniques for the tibial component in primary total knee replacement. Bone Joint J 95-b:295–300

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Lindstrand A, Stenstrom A, Egund N (1988) The PCA unicom-partmental knee. A 1–4-year comparison of fixation with or without cement. Acta Orthop Scand 59(6):695–700

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Bernasek TL, Rand Ja, Bryan RS (1988) Unicompartmental porous coated anatomic total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 236:52–59

    Google Scholar 

  19. Liddle AD, Pandit H, Murray DW, Dodd CA (2013) Cementless unicondylar knee arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 44(3):261–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocl.2013.03.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Blaney J, Harty H, Doran E, O’Brien S, Hill J, Dobie I, Beverland D (2017) Five-year clinical and radiological outcomes in 257 consecutive cementless Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties. Bone Joint J 99-B(5):623–631. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.99b5.bjj-2016-0760.r1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Panzram B, Bertlich I, Reiner T, Walker T, Hagmann S, Gotterbarm T (2017) Cementless Oxford medial unicompartimental knee replacement: an independent series with a 5-year-follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137(7):1011–1017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2696-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Stempin R, Kaczmarek W, Stempin K, Dutka J (2017) Midterm results of cementless and cemented unicondylar knee arthroplasty with mobile meniscal bearing: a prospective cohort study. Open Orthop J 137(7):1011–1017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2696-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hooper N, Snell D, Hooper G, Maxwell R, Frampton C (2015) The five-year radiological results of the uncemented Oxford medial compartment knee arthroplasty. C1Bone Joint J 97-B(10):1358–1363. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.97b10.35668

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kendrick BJ, Kaptein BL, Valstar ER, Gill HS, Jackson WF, Dodd CA, Price AJ, Murray DW (2015) Cemented versus cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using radiostereometric analysis: a randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint J 97-B(2):185–191. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.97b2.34331

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lecuire F, Berard JB, Martres S (2014) Minimum 10-year follow-up results of ALPINA cementless hydroxyapatite- coated anatomic unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 24(3):385–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-013-1192-3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Schlueter-Brust Klaus (2013) Ten year survivorship after cemented and uncemented medial Uniglide Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. Knee 21(5):964–970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2014.03.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Liddle AD, Pandit H, O’Brien S, Doran E, Penny ID, Hooper GJ, Burn PJ, Dodd CA, Beverland DE, Maxwell AR, Murray DW (2013) Cementless fixation in Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement: a multicentre study of 1000 knees. Bone Joint J 95-B(2):181–187. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.95b2.30411

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hall MJ, Connell DA, Morris HG (2013) Medium to long- term results of the UNIX uncemented unicompartmental knee replacement. Knee 20(5):328–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2012.09.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Akan B, Karaguven D, Guclu B, Yildrim T, Kaya A, Armangil M, Cetin I (2013) Cemented versus uncemented oxford unicompartmental knee artroplasty: is there a difference? Adv Orthoped. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/245915

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Pandit H, Liddle AD, Kendrick BJ, Jenkins C, Price AJ, Gill HS, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2013) Improved fixation in cementless unicompartmental knee replacement: five-year results of a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95(15):1365–1372. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.l.01005

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Keblish PA, Briard JL (2004) Mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a 2-center study with an 11-year (mean) follow-up. J Arthroplasty 19(7 Suppl 2):87–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Jeer PJ, Keene GC, Gill P (2004) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: an intermediate report of survivorship after the introduction of a new system with analysis of failures. Knee 11(5):369–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Forsythe ME, Englund RE, Leighton RK (2000) Unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a cementless perspective. Can J Surg 43(6):417–424

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Magnussen PA, Bartlett RJ (1990) Cementless PCA unicompartmental joint arthroplasty for osteoarthritis of the knee. A prospective study of 51 cases. J Arthroplasty 5(2):151–158

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Campi S, Pandit HG, Oosthuizen CR (2018) The Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: the South African experience. J Arthroplasty 33(6):1727–1731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.01.035

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

There is no funding source.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Humanitas Clinical and Research Center- IRCCS, Via Alessandro Manzon i56, 20089, Rozzano (MI), Italy

    M. Basso, E. Arnaldi & A. A. M. Bruno

  2. U.O. Clinica Ortopedica e Traumatologia -Ospedale Policlinico San Martino – IST, Istituto Nazionale per la Ricerca sul Cancro, Largo Rosanna Benzi, 10, 16132, Genoa, GE, Italy

    M. Formica

Authors
  1. M. Basso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. Arnaldi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. A. M. Bruno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Formica
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Basso.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

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

Basso, M., Arnaldi, E., Bruno, A.A.M. et al. Outcomes of cementless fixation in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: review of recent literature. Musculoskelet Surg 105, 131–138 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-020-00672-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-020-00672-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation