Advertisement

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 468, Issue 1, pp 73–81 | Cite as

Does Bearing Design Influence Midterm Survivorship of Unicompartmental Arthroplasty?

  • John-Paul WhittakerEmail author
  • Douglas D. R. Naudie
  • James P. McAuley
  • Richard W. McCalden
  • Steven J. MacDonald
  • Robert B. Bourne
Symposium: Papers Presented at the Annual Meetings of the Knee Society

Abstract

Medial unicompartmental arthroplasties (UKA) are available with mobile- and fixed-bearing designs, with the advantages of one bearing over another unproven. We questioned whether the bearing design influenced clinical outcome, survivorship, the reason for revision, or the timing of failures. We retrospectively reviewed 179 patients (229 knees) who had medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties between 1990 and 2007; of these 79 knees had a mobile-bearing design and 150 knees a fixed-bearing design. Patients with mobile-bearing UKA had a minimum followup of 1 year (mean, 3.6 years; range, 1–11.3 years); those with fixed-bearing UKA a minimum followup of 1 year (mean, 8.1 years; range, 1–17.8 years). Patients were evaluated with clinical outcome scores and radiographically using the Knee Society rating system. Seven of 79 (9%) mobile-bearing knees underwent revision at a mean of 2.6 years, and 22 of 150 (15%) fixed-bearing knees underwent revision at a mean of 6.9 years. The 5-year cumulative survival rates were 88% (SE ± 0.47, 95% CI 0.7229–1) and 96% (SE ± 0.16, 95% CI 0.93–0.9979) for the mobile- and fixed-bearing designs respectively using the endpoint of revision surgery. We observed no differences in the indications or complexity of revision surgery between the groups and none in midterm survivorship.

Level of Evidence: Level III, comparative study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Keywords

Total Knee Arthroplasty Aseptic Loosening Tibial Component High Tibial Osteotomy Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. C.H. Rorabeck for his patient contributions and Amarpreet Sanghera, Julie Marr, and Jeff Guerin for their help in the preparation of the manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Akizuki S, Mueller JK, Horiuchi H, Matsunaga D, Shibakawa A, Komistek RD. In vivo determination of kinematics for subjects having a Zimmer unicompartmental high flex Knee System. J Arthroplasty. 2008 Aug 11. [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aleto TJ, Berend ME, Ritter MA, Faris PM, Meneghini RM. Early failure of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty leading to revision. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:159–163.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amin AK, Patton JT, Cook RE, Gaston M, Brenkel IJ. Unicompartmental or total knee arthroplasty?: Results from a matched study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;451:101–106.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Argenson JN, Chevrol-Benkeddache Y, Aubaniac JM. Modern unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cement: a three to ten-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:2235–2239.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ashraf T, Newman JH, Desai VV, Beard D, Nevelos JE. Polyethylene wear in a non-congruous unicompartmental knee replacement: a retrieval analysis. Knee. 2004;11:177–181.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barrett WP, Scott RD. Revision of failed unicondylar unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;69:1328–1335.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988;15:1833–1840.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Berger RA, Meneghini RM, Jacobs JJ, Sheinkop MB, Della Valle CJ, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO. Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum of ten years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:999–1006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bohm I, Landsiedl F. Revision surgery after failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study of 35 cases. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15:982–989.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chakrabarty G, Newman JH, Ackroyd CE. Revision of unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee. Clinical and technical considerations. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13:191–196.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Confalonieri N, Manzotti A, Pullen C. Comparison of a mobile with a fixed tibial bearing unicompartimental knee prosthesis: a prospective randomized trial using a dedicated outcome score. Knee. 2004;11:357–362.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dudley TE, Gioe TJ, Sinner P, Mehle S. Registry outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revisions. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:1666–1670.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Emerson RH, Jr, Hansborough T, Reitman RD, Rosenfeldt W, Higgins LL. Comparison of a mobile with a fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee implant. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;404:62–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Emerson RH, Jr, Higgins LL. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with the oxford prosthesis in patients with medial compartment arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:118–122.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Furnes O, Espehaug B, Lie SA, Vollset SE, Engesaeter LB, Havelin LI. Failure mechanisms after unicompartmental and tricompartmental primary knee replacement with cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:519–525.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gioe TJ, Killeen KK, Hoeffel DP, Bert JM, Comfort TK, Scheltema K, Mehle S, Grimm K. Analysis of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in a community-based implant registry. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;416:111–119.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gleeson RE, Evans R, Ackroyd CE, Webb J, Newman JH. Fixed or mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement? A comparative cohort study. Knee. 2004;11:379–384.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hollinghurst D, Stoney J, Ward T, Gill HS, Newman JH, Murray DW, Beard DJ. No deterioration of kinematics and cruciate function 10 years after medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Knee. 2006;13:440–444.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hopper GP, Leach WJ. Participation in sporting activities following knee replacement: total versus unicompartmental. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008;16:973–979.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Insall J, Aglietti P. A five to seven-year follow-up of unicondylar arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1980;62:1329–1337.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;13–14.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Isaac SM, Barker KL, Danial IN, Beard DJ, Dodd CA, Murray DW. Does arthroplasty type influence knee joint proprioception? A longitudinal prospective study comparing total and unicompartmental arthroplasty. Knee. 2007;14:212–217.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jeer PJ, Cossey AJ, Keene GC. Haemoglobin levels following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: influence of transfusion practice and surgical approach. Knee. 2005;12:358–361.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Johnson S, Jones P, Newman JH. The survivorship and results of total knee replacements converted from unicompartmental knee replacements. Knee. 2007;14:154–157.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Koskinen E, Eskelinen A, Paavolainen P, Pulkkinen P, Remes V. 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. 2008;79:499–507.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Koskinen E, Paavolainen P, Eskelinen A, Pulkkinen P, Remes V. Unicondylar knee replacement for primary osteoarthritis: a prospective follow-up study of 1,819 patients from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop. 2007;78:128–135.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lai CH, Rand JA. Revision of failed unicompartmental total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;287:193–201.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Levine WN, Ozuna RM, Scott RD, Thornhill TS. Conversion of failed modern unicompartmental arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1996;11:797–801.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lewold S, Goodman S, Knutson K, Robertsson O, Lidgren L. Oxford meniscal bearing knee versus the Marmor knee in unicompartmental arthroplasty for arthrosis. A Swedish multicenter survival study. J Arthroplasty. 1995;10:722–731.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lewold S, Robertsson O, Knutson K, Lidgren L. Revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: outcome in 1,135 cases from the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty study. Acta Orthop Scand. 1998;69:469–474.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Li MG, Yao F, Joss B, Ioppolo J, Nivbrant B, Wood D. Mobile vs. fixed bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasty: A randomized study on short term clinical outcomes and knee kinematics. Knee. 2006;13:365–370.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lindstrand A, Stenstrom A, Lewold S. Multicenter study of unicompartmental knee revision. PCA, Marmor, and St Georg compared in 3,777 cases of arthrosis. Acta Orthop Scand. 1992;63:256–259.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    McAuley JP, Engh GA, Ammeen DJ. Revision of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;392:279–282.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Murray DW, Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ. The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a ten-year survival study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80:983–989.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Naudie D, Guerin J, Parker DA, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH. Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with the Miller-Galante prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:1931–1935.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Newman JH, Ackroyd CE, Shah NA. Unicompartmental or total knee replacement? Five-year results of a prospective, randomised trial of 102 osteoarthritic knees with unicompartmental arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80:862–865.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    O’Rourke MR, Gardner JJ, Callaghan JJ, Liu SS, Goetz DD, Vittetoe DA, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC. The John Insall Award: unicompartmental knee replacement: a minimum twenty-one-year followup, end-result study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;440:27–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Padgett DE, Stern SH, Insall JN. Revision total knee arthroplasty for failed unicompartmental replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991;73:186–190.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Palmer SH, Morrison PJ, Ross AC. Early catastrophic tibial component wear after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;350:143–148.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Patil S, Colwell CW, Jr, Ezzet KA, D’Lima DD. Can normal knee kinematics be restored with unicompartmental knee replacement? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:332–338.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pennington DW, Swienckowski JJ, Lutes WB, Drake GN. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients sixty years of age or younger. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:1968–1973.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Price AJ, Oppold PT, Murray DW, Zavatsky AB. Simultaneous in vitro measurement of patellofemoral kinematics and forces following Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:1591–1595.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Price AJ, Rees JL, Beard DJ, Gill RH, Dodd CA, Murray DM. Sagittal plane kinematics of a mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at 10 years: a comparative in vivo fluoroscopic analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19:590–597.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Price AJ, Short A, Kellett C, Beard D, Gill H, Pandit H, Dodd CA, Murray DW. Ten-year in vivo wear measurement of a fully congruent mobile bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:1493–1497.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Price AJ, Waite JC, Svard U. Long-term clinical results of the medial Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;435:171–180.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Price AJ, Webb J, Topf H, Dodd CA, Goodfellow JW, Murray DW. Rapid recovery after oxford unicompartmental arthroplasty through a short incision. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:970–976.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Psychoyios V, Crawford RW, O’Connor JJ, Murray DW. Wear of congruent meniscal bearings in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a retrieval study of 16 specimens. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80:976–982.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Robertsson O, Knutson K, Lewold S, Lidgren L. The routine of surgical management reduces failure after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83:45–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Robertsson O, Lidgren L. The short-term results of 3 common UKA implants during different periods in Sweden. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:801–807.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Saldanha KA, Keys GW, Svard UC, White SH, Rao C. Revision of Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty—results of a multicentre study. Knee. 2007;14:275–279.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Saragaglia D, Estour G, Nemer C, Colle PE. Revision of 33 unicompartmental knee prostheses using total knee arthroplasty: strategy and results. Int Orthop. 2008 Jun 18. [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Simpson DJ, Gray H, D’Lima D, Murray DW, Gill HS. The effect of bearing congruency, thickness and alignment on the stresses in unicompartmental knee replacements. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2008;23:1148–1157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Springer BD, Scott RD, Thornhill TS. Conversion of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;446:214–220.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Squire MW, Callaghan JJ, Goetz DD, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC. Unicompartmental knee replacement. A minimum 15 year followup study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;367:61–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Steele RG, Hutabarat S, Evans RL, Ackroyd CE, Newman JH. Survivorship of the St Georg Sled medial unicompartmental knee replacement beyond ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:1164–1168.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Svard UC, Price AJ. Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. A survival analysis of an independent series. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83:191–194.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Tabor OB, Jr, Tabor OB. Unicompartmental arthroplasty: a long-term follow-up study. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13:373–379.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Tabor OB, Jr, Tabor OB, Bernard M, Wan JY. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: long-term success in middle-age and obese patients. J Surg Orthop Adv. 2005;14:59–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Vorlat P, Putzeys G, Cottenie D, Van Isacker T, Pouliart N, Handelberg F, Casteleyn PP, Gheysen F, Verdonk R. The Oxford unicompartmental knee prosthesis: an independent 10-year survival analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006;14:40–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Ware JJ, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220–233.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • John-Paul Whittaker
    • 1
    Email author
  • Douglas D. R. Naudie
    • 2
  • James P. McAuley
    • 2
  • Richard W. McCalden
    • 2
  • Steven J. MacDonald
    • 2
  • Robert B. Bourne
    • 2
  1. 1.Robert Jones & Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic HospitalOswestryUK
  2. 2.Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, London Health Sciences Centre, University Campus University of Western OntarioLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations