Does Bearing Design Influence Midterm Survivorship of Unicompartmental Arthroplasty?
- 343 Downloads
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.
KeywordsTotal Knee Arthroplasty Aseptic Loosening Tibial Component High Tibial Osteotomy Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty
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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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