UniCAP offers a long term treatment for middle-aged patients, who are not revised within the first 9 years

  • Jens Ole LaursenEmail author
  • Christian Backer Mogensen
  • Helene Skjøt-Arkil



The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term outcome of the unicompartmental knee resurfacing prosthesis (UniCAP) using clinical and radiographic assessments, and to evaluate the revision and survival rates.


This was a prospective cohort study of patients with UniCAP prostheses with 6–9 years of follow-up. The clinical examination included the Knee Society Score (KSS) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score. The radiographic examination included the Kellgren–Lawrence (KL) grading scale. A comparison analysis of the clinical preoperative and follow-up data and a Kaplan–Meier survival analysis were performed.


Of the 64 UniCAP patients, 36 (56%) were revised and one died. Examinations were performed on 23 (85%) of them. When compared with the preoperative data, the examinations showed a significant increase in the KSS objective [mean = 47.4, standard deviation (SD) = 5.8 vs. mean = 90.0, SD = 6.9] and function (mean = 46.7, SD = 6.8 vs. mean = 91.1, SD = 6.9) scores, a decrease in the VAS-score (mean = 7.3, SD = 0.5 vs. mean = 3.4, SD = 1.4) and a significant increase in the KL medial score (mean = 1.7, SD = 0.6 vs. mean = 2.1, SD = 0.5). The Kaplan–Meier survival rate after 5 years indicated good long-term outcomes.


There was a survival rate of approximately 40% after 9 years of follow-up, but in the group of patients (35–65 years old) not eligible for a final total arthroplasty. These patients were often left with pain and disability. This implant can be a temporary or even long-term treatment because it improved the disability and function over the long-term without a major progression in the osteoarthritis, function or pain. Long term results of this mini-prosthesis have not been previously reported.

Level of evidence



Condylar implant Femoral resurfacing Cartilage injury Large cartilage lesions Early osteoarthritis Small implants Knee prosthesis 



There is no funding source.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

There have been no conflicts of interests.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.


  1. 1.
    Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (2016) Annual report, pp 183Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Becher C, Huber R, Cantiller EB (2017) Focal articular prosthesis resurfacing for the treatment of full-thickness articular cartilage defects in the knee: 12-year follow-up of two cases and review of the literature. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137(9):1307–1317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Becher C, Kalbe C, Thermann H, Paessler HH, Laprell H, Kaiser T, Fechner A, Bartsch S, Windhagen H, Ostermeier S (2011) Minimum 5-year results of focal articular prosthetic resurfacing for the treatment of full-thickness articular cartilage defects in the knee. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131:1135–1143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Biant LC, Bentley G, Vijayan S, Skinner JA, Carrington RW (2014) Long-term results of autologous chondrocyte implantation in the knee for chronic chondral and osteochondral defects. Am J Sports Med 42(9):2178–2183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bollars P, Bosquet M, Vandekerckhove B, Hardeman F, Bellemans J (2012) Prosthetic inlay resurfacing for the treatment of focal, full thickness cartilage defects of the femoral condyle: a bridge between biologics and conventional arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:1753–1759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brennan SA, Devitt BM, O’Neill CJ, Nicholson P (2013) Focal femoral condyle resurfacing. Bone Jt J 95-B:301–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cicuttini F, Ding C, Wluka A, Davis S, Ebeling PR, Jones G (2005) Association with cartilage defects with loss of knee cartilage in healthy, middle-age adults: a prospective study. Arthritis Rheum 52:2033–2039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Danish Orthopaedic Association (2015) National joint replacement registry (DKR) annual reportGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davies-Tuck ML, Wluka AE, Wang Y, Teichtahl AJ, Jones G, Ding C, Cicuttini FM (2008) The natural history of cartilage defects in people with knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartil 16(3):337–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dhollander AAM, Almquist KF, Moens K, Vandekerckhove PJ, Verdonk R, Verdonk P, Victor J (2015) The use of a prosthetic inlay resurfacing as a salvage procedure for a failed cartilage repair. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:2208–2212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Feucht MJ, Cotic M, Beitzel K, Baldini JF, Meidinger G, Schöttle PB, Imhoff AB (2017) A matched-pair comparison of inlay and onlay trochlear designs for patellofemoral arthroplasty: no differences in clinical outcome but less progression of osteoarthritis with inlay designs. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25:2784–2791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fuchs A, Eberbach H, Izadpanah K, Bode G, Südkamp NP, Feucht MJ (2018) Focal metallic inlay resurfacing prosthesis for the treatment of localized cartilage defects of the femoral condyles: a systematic review of clinical studies. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26:2722–2732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harrysson OL, Robertsson O, Nayfeh JF (2004) Higher cumulative revision rate of knee arthroplasties in younger patients with osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 421:162–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Imhoff AB, Feucht MJ, Meidinger G, Schötte PB, Cotic M (2015) Prospective evaluation of anatomic patellofemoral inlay resurfacing: clinical, radiographic and sports-related results after 24 months. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:1299–1307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:13–14Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS (1957) Radiological assessment of osteoarthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis 16(4):494–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Laursen JO, Lind M (2017) Treatment of full-thickness femoral cartilage lesions using condyle resurfacing prosthesis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25:746–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Laursen JO (2016) Treatment of full-thickness cartilage lesions and early OA using large condyle resurfacing prosthesis: UniCAP. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24:1695–1701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li CS, Karlsson J, Winemaker M, Sancheti P, Bhandari M (2014) Orthopaedic surgeons feel that there is a treatment gap in management of early OA: international survey. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22(2):363–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    London NJ, Miller LE, Block JE (2011) Clinical and economic consequences of the treatment gap in knee osteoarthritis management. Med Hypotheses 76:887–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miniaci A (2014) UniCAP as an alternative for unicompartmental arthritis. Clin Sports Med 33(1):57–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Skou ST, Derosche CA, Andersen MM, Rathleff MS, Simonsen O (2015) Nonoperative treatment improves pain irrespective of radiographic severity. A cohort study of 1,414 patients with knee osteoarthritis. Acta Orthop 86(5):599–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Steadman JR, Briggs KK, Rodrigo JJ, Kocher MS, Gill TJ, Rodkey WG (2003) Outcomes of microfracture for traumatic chondral defects of the knee: 11-year follow-up. J Arthroscopy 19:477–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vanlauwe J, Saris DB, Victor J, Almqvist KF, Bellemans J, Luyten FP (2011) Five-year outcome of characterized chondrocyte implantation versus microfracture for symptomatic cartilage defects of the knee: early treatment matters. Am J Sports Med 39(12):2566–2574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP (2007) The strengthening in the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. The Lancet 370(9596):1453–1457CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Emergency MedicineHospital of Southern JutlandAabenraaDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryHospital of Southern JutlandSoenderborgDenmark
  3. 3.Institute of Regional Health ResearchUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark

Personalised recommendations