Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 471, Issue 11, pp 3533–3539

The Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Fails at a High Rate in a High-volume Knee Practice

  • William C. Schroer
  • C. Lowry Barnes
  • Paul Diesfeld
  • Angela LeMarr
  • Rachel Ingrassia
  • Diane J. Morton
  • Mary Reedy
Clinical Research

Abstract

Background

The Oxford knee is a unicompartmental implant featuring a mobile-bearing polyethylene component with excellent long-term survivorship results reported by the implant developers and early adopters. By contrast, other studies have reported higher revision rates in large academic practices and in national registries. Registry data have shown increased failure with this implant especially by lower-volume surgeons and institutions.

Questions/purposes

In the setting of a high-volume knee arthroplasty practice, we sought to determine (1) the failure rate of the Oxford unicompartmental knee implant using a failure definition for aseptic loosening that combined clinical features, plain radiographs, and scintigraphy, and (2) whether increased experience with this implant would decrease failure rate, if there is a learning curve effect.

Methods

Eighty-three Oxford knee prostheses were implanted between September 2005 and July 2008 by the principal investigator. Radiographic and clinical data were available for review for all cases. A failed knee was defined as having recurrent pain after an earlier period of recovery from surgery, progressive radiolucent lines compared with initial postoperative radiographs, and a bone scan showing an isolated area of uptake limited to the area of the replaced compartment.

Results

Eleven knees in this series failed (13%); Kaplan-Meier survivorship was 86.5% (95% CI, 78.0%–95.0%) at 5 years. Failure occurrences were distributed evenly over the course of the study period. No learning curve effect was identified.

Conclusions

Based on these findings, including a high failure rate of the Oxford knee implant and the absence of any discernible learning curve effect, the principal investigator no longer uses this implant.

Level of Evidence

Level III, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

References

  1. 1.
    Baker P, Jameson S, Critchley R, Gregg P, Deehan D. 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. 2013;95:702–709.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berbari E, Mabry T, Tsaras G, Spangehl M, Erwin PJ, Murad MH, Steckelberg J, Osmon D. Inflammatory blood laboratory levels as markers of prosthetic joint infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:2102–2109.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr. Liberal indications for minimally invasive Oxford unicondylar arthroplasty provide rapid functional recovery and pain relief. Surg Technol Int. 2007;16:193–197.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chou DT, Swamy GN, Lewis JR, Badhe NP. Revision of failed unicompartmental knee replacement to total knee replacement. Knee. 2012;19:356–359.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Choy WS, Kim KJ, Lee SK, Yang DS, Lee NK. Mid-term results of Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Surg. 2011;3:178–183.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dervin GF, Carruthers C, Freibel RJ, Gianchino AA, Kim PR, Thurston PR. Initial experience with the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:192–197.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ericsson KA, Krampe RT, Tesch-Romer C. The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychol Rev. 1993:100:363–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ, Murray DW. A critique of revision rate as an outcome measure: re-interpretation of knee joint registry data. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92:1628–1631.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gulati A, Chau R, Pandit HG, Gray H, Price AJ, Dodd CA, Murray DW. The incidence of physiological radiolucency following Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement and its relationship to outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91:896–902.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hamilton WG, Ammeen D, Engh CA Jr, Engh GA. Learning curve with minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25:735–740.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heller S, Fenichel I, Salai M, Luria T, Velkes S. The Oxford unicompartmental knee prosthesis for the treatment of medial compartment knee disease: 2 to 5 year follow-up. Isr Med Assoc J. 2009;11:266–268.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kalra S, Smith TO, Berko B, Walton NP. Assessment of radiolucent lines around the Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement: sensitivity and specificity for loosening. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93:777–781.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc. 1958;53:457–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kendrick BJ, Simpson DJ, Kapstein BL, Valstar ER, Gill HS, Murray DW, Price AJ. Polyethylene wear of mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee replacement at 20 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93:470–475.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kuipers BM, Kollen BJ, Bots PC, Burger BJ, Van Raay JJ, Tulp NJ, Verheyen CC. Factors associated with reduced early survival in the Oxford phase III medial unicompartmental knee replacement. Knee. 2010;17:48–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lewold S, Goodman S, Knutson K, Robertson 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mercier N, Wimsey S, Saragaglia D. Long-term clinical results of the Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2010;34:1137–1143.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    New Zealand Orthopaedic Association. The New Zealand Joint Registry. Thirteen year report: January 1999–December 2012. Available at: www.nzoa.org.nz/nz-joint-registry. Accessed July 3, 2013.
  20. 20.
    Pandit H, Jenkins C, Barker K, Dodd CA, Murray DW. The Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement using a minimally-invasive approach. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:54–60.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pearse AJ, Hooper GJ, Rothwell A, Frampton C. Survival and functional outcome after revision of a unicompartmental to a total knee replacement: the New Zealand National Joint Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92:508–512.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Price AJ, Svard U. A second decade lifetable survival analysis of the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:174–179.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rea P, Short A, Pandit H, Price AJ, Kyberd P, Beard DJ, Gill HS, Murray DW. Radiolucency and migration after Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2007;30(5 suppl):24–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schroer WC, Calvert GT, Diesfeld PJ, Reedy ME, LeMarr AR. Effects of increased surgical volume on total knee arthroplasty complications. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23(6 suppl 1):61–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schroer WC, Stormont DM, Pietrzak WS. Seven-year survivorship and functional outcomes of the high-flexion Vanguard complete knee system. J Arthroplasty. 2013 May 20. pii: S0883-5403(13)00311-2 [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zermatten P, Munzinger U. The Oxford II medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: an independent 10-year survival study. Acta Orthop Belg. 2012;78:203–209.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • William C. Schroer
    • 1
  • C. Lowry Barnes
    • 2
  • Paul Diesfeld
    • 1
  • Angela LeMarr
    • 1
  • Rachel Ingrassia
    • 1
  • Diane J. Morton
    • 1
  • Mary Reedy
    • 1
  1. 1.St Louis Joint Replacement Institute, SSM DePaul Health CenterSt LouisUSA
  2. 2.Arkansas Specialty OrthopaedicsLittle RockUSA

Personalised recommendations