Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 38, Issue 5, pp 961–965 | Cite as

Common causes of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a single-centre analysis of four hundred and seventy one cases

  • Mustafa CitakEmail author
  • Kathrin Dersch
  • Atul F. Kamath
  • Carl Haasper
  • Thorsten Gehrke
  • Daniel Kendoff
Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

We performed this retrospective study to determine the main causes for early and late failures of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA).

Methods

Between January 2000 and March 2012, all patients treated for a failed medial UKA in the authors’ institution were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 471 patients were identified, and causes of failure were analysed based on the medical records and radiographs at the time of revision.

Results

The cohort included 161 males and 310 females, with a mean age of 67.7 years (range, 42–91 years; SD = 10.1) at the time of revision. The mean time from index arthroplasty to revision surgery was 6.1 years (range, 0.1–27.9 years; SD = 5.6). A total of 254 cases (53.9 %) failed within five years after primary implantation, and 108 cases (22.9 %) failed after ten years. The major reason for failure was the development of other compartment arthritis (39.5 %), followed by aseptic loosening (25.4 %).

Conclusions

Of importance, the mean time to failure after UKA was 6.1 years, with more than 50 % of failures occurring within the first five years postoperatively.

Keywords

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty Unicondylar knee arthroplasty Failure Aseptic loosening Outcome 

References

  1. 1.
    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 367:50–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ohdera T, Tokunaga J, Kobayashi A (2001) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for lateral gonarthrosis: midterm results. J Arthroplasty 16(2):196–200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Insall J, Aglietti P (1980) A five to seven-year follow-up of unicondylar arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 62(8):1329–1337PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lindstrand A, Stenstrom A, Lewold S (1992) Multicenter study of unicompartmental knee revision. PCA, Marmor, and St Georg compared in 3,777 cases of arthrosis. Acta Orthop Scand 63(3):256–259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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 Joint Surg Am 87(5):999–1006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cartier P, Sanouiller JL, Grelsamer RP (1996) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty surgery. 10-year minimum follow-up period. J Arthroplasty 11(7):782–788PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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):102–108PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Murray DW, Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ (1998) The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a ten-year survival study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80(6):983–989PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Svard UC, Price AJ (2001) Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. A survival analysis of an independent series. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83(2):191–194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Manzotti A, Cerveri P, Pullen C, Confalonieri N (2013) Computer-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using dedicated software versus a conventional technique. Int Orthop. doi: 10.1007/s00264-013-2215-8 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Saragaglia D, Picard F, Refaie R (2012) Navigation of the tibial plateau alone appears to be sufficient in computer-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 36(12):2479–2483PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Buckup K, Linke LC, Hahne V (2007) Minimally invasive implantation and computer navigation for a unicondylar knee system. Orthopedics 30(8 Suppl):66–69PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Molfetta L, Caldo D (2008) Computer navigation versus conventional implantation for varus knee total arthroplasty: a case-control study at 5 years follow-up. Knee 15(2):75–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Epinette JA, Brunschweiler B, Mertl P, Mole D, Cazenave A (2012) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty modes of failure: wear is not the main reason for failure: a multicentre study of 418 failed knees. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 98(6 Suppl):S124–S130PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Saragaglia D, Bonnin M, Dejour D, Deschamps G, Chol C, Chabert B, Refaie R (2013) Results of a French multicentre retrospective experience with four hundred and eighteen failed unicondylar knee arthroplasties. Int Orthop 37(7):1273–1278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sierra RJ, Kassel CA, Wetters NG, Berend KR, Della Valle CJ, Lombardi AV (2013) Revision of unicompartmental arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: not always a slam dunk! J Arthroplasty 28(8 Suppl):128–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sundberg M, Lidgren L, Dahl A, Robertson O (2011) The Swedish knee arthroplasty register. Annual report 2011Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tomkins A (2011) Australian Orthopaedic Association. National joint replacement registry. Annual report 2011Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ewald FC (1989) The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:9–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hernigou P, Deschamps G (2002) Patellar impingement following unicompartmental arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-A(7):1132–1137PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jarvenpaa J, Kettunen J, Miettinen H, Kroger H (2010) The clinical outcome of revision knee replacement after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty: 8–17 years follow-up study of 49 patients. Int Orthop 34(5):649–653PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mercier N, Wimsey S, Saragaglia D (2010) Long-term clinical results of the Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 34(8):1137–1143PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Newman J, Pydisetty RV, Ackroyd C (2009) Unicompartmental or total knee replacement: the 15-year results of a prospective randomised controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91(1):52–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Saragaglia D, Estour G, Nemer C, Colle PE (2009) Revision of 33 unicompartmental knee prostheses using total knee arthroplasty: strategy and results. Int Orthop 33(4):969–974PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Steele RG, Hutabarat S, Evans RL, Ackroyd CE, Newman JH (2006) Survivorship of the St Georg Sled medial unicompartmental knee replacement beyond ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88(9):1164–1168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr (2007) Liberal indications for minimally invasive oxford unicondylar arthroplasty provide rapid functional recovery and pain relief. Surg Technol Int 16:193–197PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Baker P, Jameson S, Critchley R, Reed M, Gregg P, Deehan D (2013) Center and surgeon volume influence the revision rate following unicondylar knee replacement: an analysis of 23,400 medial cemented unicondylar knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95(8):702–709PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mustafa Citak
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kathrin Dersch
    • 1
  • Atul F. Kamath
    • 2
  • Carl Haasper
    • 1
  • Thorsten Gehrke
    • 1
  • Daniel Kendoff
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryHelios Endo-Kinik HamburgHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations