Outcomes and survivorship of unicondylar knee arthroplasty in patients with severe deformity

  • C. S. Seng
  • Derek C. Ho
  • H. C. Chong
  • S. L. Chia
  • P. L. Chin
  • N. N. Lo
  • S. J. Yeo


Purpose Patients with severe deformity beyond the standard indications for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) may be suitable and benefit from UKA. This study investigated their outcomes to determine whether good function and quality of life (QOL) can be achieved.

Materials and methods

Fifty-three patients with severe deformity (40 patients with FFD ≥15° and 13 patients with varus deformity ≥15°, Group A) were matched with 53 patients with less severe deformities who underwent UKA (Group B/controls) in terms of age, sex, BMI and duration of follow-up. Their flexion range, Knee Society scores (KSS), Oxford knee scores (OKS) and SF-36 QOL scores were analysed pre-operatively and at 2 years.


Group A patients were largely similar to Group B patients pre-operatively in terms of maximum flexion angle, OKS and SF-36 scores except for knee score and mental health component of SF-36. At 2 years, Group A reported largely similar results compared with Group B in all outcome scores (OKS, KSS, SF-36) and flexion angle. Post-operative mechanical alignment was better for the control group though it is not statistically significant. There were no revisions in the patients with severe pre-operative deformity at 5 years post-operatively. (Survivorship 100 % at 5 years).


Selected patients with severe deformity can achieve good function and QOL with UKA if satisfactory mechanical alignment is restored. This study supports a broadening of the indications of UKA; however, further follow-up is needed to assess the longer-term durability of the operation.

Level of evidence



Outcomes Unicondylar knee arthroplasty Severe deformity 


  1. 1.
    Beard DJ, Pandit H, Gill HS et al (2007) The influence of the presence and severity of pre-existing patellofemoral degenerative changes on the outcome of the Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 89-B:1597–1601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beard DJ, Pandit H, Ostlere S et al (2007) Pre-operative clinical and radiological assessment of the patellofemoral joint in unicompartmental knee replacement and its influence on outcome. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 89-B:1602–1607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boyd Joel L, Kurtenbach Chad A, Sikka Robby S (2014) Patient-specific instrumentation and return to activities after unicondylar knee arthroplasty. Clin Sports Med 33(1):133–148CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bradbury N, Borton D, Spoo G, Cross MJ (1998) Participation in sports after total knee replacement. Am J Sports Med 26(4):530–535PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cartier P, Sanouiller JL, Grelsamer RP (1996) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty surgery. 10-year minimum follow-up period. J Arthroplasty 11:782CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chatterji U, Ashworth MJ, Lewis PL, Dobson PJ (2005) Effect of total knee arthroplasty on recreational and sporting activity. ANZ J Surg 75(6):405–408CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dahl AW, Robertsson O, Lidgren L, Miller L, Davidson D, Graves S (2010) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients aged less than 65. Acta Orthop 81(1):90–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Emerson RH Jr, Higgins LL (2008) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with the oxford prosthesis in patients with medial compartment arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 90(1):118–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fisher DA, Watts M, Davis KE (2003) Implant position in knee surgery: a comparison of minimally invasive, open unicompartmental, and total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 18(7 Suppl 1):2–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fisher N, Agarwal M, Reuben SF, Johnson DS, Turner PG (2006) Sporting and physical activity following Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee 13(4):296–300CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goodfellow JW, Kershaw CJ, Benson MK, O’Connor JJ (1998) The Oxford knee for unicompartmental osteoarthritis. The first 103 cases. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 70:692–701Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hernigou P, Deschamps G (2004) Alignment influences wear in the knee after medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 423:161–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Huch K, Muller KA, Sturmer T, Brenner H, Puhl W, Gunther KP (2005) Sports activities 5 years after total knee or hip arthroplasty: the Ulm Osteoarthritis Study. Ann Rheum Dis 64(12):1715–1720CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jahromi I, Walton NP, Dobson PJ, Lewis PL, Campbell DG (2004) Patient-perceived outcome measures following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with mini incision. Int Orthop 28(5):286–289CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kennedy WR, White RP (1987) Unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee. Post-operative alignment and its influence on overall results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 221:278–285Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Keys GW, Ul-Abiddin Z, Toh EM (2004) Analysis of first forty Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement from a small district hospital in UK. Knee 11(5):375–377CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim KT, Lee S, Kim TW, Lee JS, Boo KH (2012) The influence of post-operative tibiofemoral alignment on the clinical results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res 24(2):85–90CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kozinn SC, Scott R (1989) Current concepts review unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 71:145–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Laubenthal KN (1972) A quantitative analysis of knee motion during activities of daily living. Phys Ther 52:34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McHorney CA, Ware JE, Rogers W, Raczek A, Lu JFR (1992) The validity and relative precision of MOS short- and long-form health status scales and Dartmouth COOP charts: results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care 30(Suppl 15):MS253–MS265PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mullaji AB, Sharma A, Marawar S (2007) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: functional recovery and radiographic results with a minimally invasive technique. J Arthroplasty 22(4 Suppl 1):7–11CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Naal FD, Fischer M, Preuss A, Goldhahn J, von Knoch F, Preiss S et al (2007) Return to sports and recreational activity after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Am J Sports Med 35(10):1688–1695CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pennington DW, Swienckowski JJ, Lutes WB, Drake GN (2003) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients 60 years of age or younger. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 85:1968–1973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rajasekhar C, Das S, Smith A (2004) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty 2- to 12-year results in a community hospital. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 86(7):983–985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ridgeway SR, McAuley JP, Ammeen DJ, Engh GA (2002) The effect of alignment of the knee on the outcome of unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 84:351–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Svard UC, Price AJ (2001) Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty a survival analysis of an independent series. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 83(2):191–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Walton NP, Jahromi I, Lewis PL, Dobson PJ, Angel KR, Campbell DG (2006) Patient perceived outcomes and return to sport and work: TKA versus mini-incision unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 19(2):112–116PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. S. Seng
    • 1
  • Derek C. Ho
    • 1
  • H. C. Chong
    • 1
  • S. L. Chia
    • 1
  • P. L. Chin
    • 1
  • N. N. Lo
    • 1
  • S. J. Yeo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgerySingapore General HospitalOutram RoadSingapore

Personalised recommendations