Skip to main content
Log in

The risk of bearing dislocation in lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using a mobile biconcave design

  • Knee
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

A safety study was conducted on a cohort of 25 patients who underwent lateral unicompartmental arthroplasty with a biconcave mobile-bearing insert.

Methods

The first 25 lateral mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee replacements, performed in a general hospital by one surgeon, were prospectively reviewed, with a minimum follow-up of 1 year.

Results

One bearing dislocation occurred 4 months postsurgery. The Oxford knee score improved in all patients from a preoperative mean of 23.3 (range 8–40, SD 8.4) to a postoperative mean of 42.1 (range 23–48, SD 6.7). General patient satisfaction at a mean follow-up of 20 months was excellent in 84 %, good in 12 % and fair in 4 %. The mechanical axis as a measure on full-leg standing radiographs improved from 5.7° valgus (range 1°–16°, SD 4.1°) to 1.7° valgus (7° to −3°, SD 2.1°). Mechanical alignment correction averaged 4.0° (range −1° to 15°, SD 3.9°).

Conclusion

The mobile biconcave insert design in the lateral unicompartmental knee replacement seems appropriate as a innovative, anatomy imitating solution, resulting in a good clinical outcome. Still, bearing dislocation remains a concern, especially in extended indication.

Level of evidence

Case series, Level IV.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Arastu MH, Vijayaraghavan J, Chissell H, Hull JB, Newman JH, Robinson JR (2009) Early failure of a mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee replacement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17:1178–1183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ashraf T, Newman JH, Evans RL, Ackroyd CE (2002) Lateral unicompartmental knee replacement survivorship and clinical experience over 21 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84:1126–1130

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Brockett CL, Jennings LM, Fisher J (2011) The wear of fixed and mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacements. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 225:511–519

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bonutti PM, Dethmers DA (2008) Contemporary UKA: fixed vs mobile bearing. J Arthroplasty 23:24–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A (1998) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:63–69

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Forster MC, Bauze AJ, Keene GC (2007) Lateral unicompartmental knee replacement: fixed or mobile bearing? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15:1107–1111

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Goodfellow J, O’Connor J (1978) The mechanics of the knee and prosthesis design. J Bone Joint Surg Br 60:358–369

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gunther TV, Murray DW, Miller R, Wallace DA, Carr AJ, O’Connor JJ, McLardy-Smith P, Goodfellow JW (1996) Lateral unicompartmental arthroplasty with the Oxford meniscal knee. Knee 3:33–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Harrington IJ (1983) Static and dynamic loading patterns in knee joints with deformities. J Bone Joint Surg Am 65:247–259

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Heyse TJ, Tibesku CO (2010) Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a review. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 130:1539–1548

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Iwaki H, Pinskerova V, Freeman MA (2000) Tibiofemoral movement 1: the shapes and relative movements of the femur and tibia in the unloaded cadaver knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br 82:1189–1195

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kendrick BJ, Longino D, Pandit H, Svard U, Gill HS, Dodd CA, Murray DW, Price AJ (2010) Polyethylene wear in Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement: a retrieval study of 47 bearings. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92:367–373

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kerens B, Kort NP (2011) Overstuffed medial compartment after mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:952–954

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kretzer JP, Jakubowitz E, Reinders J, Lietz E, Moradi B, Hofmann K, Sonntag R (2011) Wear analysis of unicondylar mobile bearing and fixed bearing knee systems: a knee simulator study. Acta Biomater 7:710–715

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lewold S, Goodman S, Knutson K, Robertsson O, Lidgren L (1995) Oxford meniscal bearing knee versus the Marmor knee in unicompartmental arthroplasty for arthrosis. A Swedish multicenter survival study. J Arthroplasty 10:722–731

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Manson TT, Kelly NH, Lipman JD, Wright TM, Westrich GH (2010) Unicondylar knee retrieval analysis. J Arthroplasty 25:108–111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Murray DW, Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ (1998) The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a ten-year survival study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:983–989

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Murray DW (2007) Mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement. Orthopedics 30:768–769

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pandit H, Jenkins C, Gill HS, Barker K, Dodd CAF, Murray DW (2011) Minimally invasive Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee replacement: results of 1000 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93:198–204

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Pandit H, Jenkins C, Beard DJ, Price AJ, Gill HS, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2010) Mobile bearing dislocation in lateral unicompartmental knee replacement. Knee 17:392–397

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Pennington DW, Swienckowski JJ, Lutes WB, Drake GN (2003) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients sixty years of age or younger. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85:1968–1973

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pinskerova V, Johal P, Nakagawa S, Sosna A, Williams A, Gedroyc W, Freeman MA (2004) Does the femur roll-back with flexion? J Bone Joint Surg Br 86:925–931

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Price AJ, Dodd CA, Svard UG, Murray DW (2005) Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients younger and older than 60 years of age. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:1488–1492

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Psychoyios V, Crawford RW, O’Connor JJ, Murray DW (1998) Wear of congruent meniscal bearings in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a retrieval study of 16 specimens. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:976–982

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Robertsson O, Knutson K, Lewold S, Lidgren L (2001) The routine of surgical management reduces failure after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83:45–49

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Robinson BJ, Rees JL, Price AJ, Beard DJ, Murray DW, McLardy Smith P, Dodd CA (2002) Dislocation of the bearing of the oxford lateral unicompartmental arthroplasty. A radiological assessment. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84:653–657

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Robinson BJ, Rees JL, Price AJ, Beard DJ, Murray DM (2002) A kinematic study of lateral unicompartmental arthroplasty. Knee 9:237–240

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Scott RD (2005) Lateral unicompartmental replacement: a road less traveled. Orthopedics 28:983–984

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Scott RD (2010) Mobile- versus fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect 59:57–60

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Svärd UC, Price AJ (2001) Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. A survival analysis of an independent series. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83:191–194

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tokuhara Y, Kadoya Y, Nakagawa S, Kobayashi A, Takaoka K (2004) The flexion gap in normal knees. An MRI study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86:1133–1136

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Vandamme G, Defoort K, Ducoulombier Y, Van Glabbeek F, Bellemans J, Victor J (2005) What should the surgeon aim for when performing computer-assisted knee arthroplasty? J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(Suppl 2):52–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Victor J, Van Glabbeek F, Vander Sloten J, Parizel PM, Somville J, Bellemans J (2009) An Experimental model for kinematic analysis of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(Suppl 6):150–163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Victor J, Labey L, Wong P, Innocenti B, Bellemans J (2010) The influence of muscle load on tibiofemoral knee kinematics. J Orthop Res 28:419–428

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Victor J, Wong P, Witvrouw E, Vander Sloten J, Bellemans J (2009) How isometric are the medial patellofemoral, the superficial medial collateral and the lateral collateral ligament of the knee. Am J Sports Med 37:2028–2036

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Weston-Simons JS, Pandit H, Gill HS, Jackson WF, Price AJ, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2011) The management of mobile bearing dislocation in the Oxford lateral unicompartmental knee replacement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:2023–2026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Iris Woytowicz for her translation assistance and Steffen Fieuws for the statistical analysis of the data. No funds were received in support of this work. No benefits in any form have been or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this manuscript. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sebastiaan Schelfaut.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schelfaut, S., Beckers, L., Verdonk, P. et al. The risk of bearing dislocation in lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using a mobile biconcave design. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21, 2487–2494 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-2171-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-2171-7

Keywords

Navigation