Causes of revision following Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty
- 752 Downloads
Revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is relatively rare, but there is concern that the minimally invasive approach might result in more complications and a higher rate of revision. Current data regarding the revision of UKA using the Oxford phase 3 prosthesis are confined to a few reviews of single-institution experience. The purpose of this study was to provide an evidence-based summarisation of the revision of UKA with a pooled analysis of the reported cases.
A systematic review of published studies that evaluated the causes that required further surgical intervention after UKA using the Oxford phase 3 prosthesis was performed. A structured literature review of multiple databases referenced articles from 1998 to 2012. The revision rates between Asian population and western population were compared.
A total of 2,683 patients (3,138 knees) from 17 published studies were assessed. The median age of the patients was 62.5 (range 32–93) years. The median follow-up period was 5.6 (range 0.1–11) years. Postoperative revision was necessary in 146 knees with a pooled percentage of 4.6 %. Bearing dislocation was found to be the single most important predisposing cause of revision, with a pooled percentage of 1.5 % (47/3,138 knees). The rate of bearing dislocation was significantly higher in Asian population than that in western population (p < 0.001).
Mobile bearing UKA seems to be less appropriate for the Asian population as extreme knee flexion is required for cultural purposes.
Level of evidence
Retrospective case series, Level IV.
KeywordsUnicompartmental knee arthroplasty Oxford phase 3 Revision
Conflict of interest
All authors report that there was no conflict of interest.
- 3.Barrett WP, Scott RD (1987) Revision of failed unicondylar unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg Am 69(9):1328–1335Google Scholar
- 7.Clement ND, Duckworth AD, MacKenzie SP, Nie YX, Tiemessen CH (2012) Medium-term results of Oxford phase-3 medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg 20(2):157–161Google Scholar
- 12.Goodfellow JW, Kershaw CJ, Benson MK, O’Connor JJ (1988) The Oxford Knee for unicompartmental osteoarthritis. The first 103 cases. J Bone Jt Surg Br 70(5):692–701Google Scholar
- 18.Kort NP, van Raay JJ, Cheung J, Jolink C, Deutman R (2007) 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 15(11):1331–1334PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar