Five-year experience of cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement

  • H. G. Pandit
  • S. Campi
  • T. W. Hamilton
  • O. D. Dada
  • S. Pollalis
  • C. Jenkins
  • C. A. F. Dodd
  • D. W. Murray
Knee

Abstract

Purpose

Cementless unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) was introduced to address some of the problems that can occur following cemented UKR. The aim of this study was to report the 5-year experience of the first 512 medial cementless Oxford UKR implanted by two surgeons for the recommended indications.

Methods

The first consecutive 512 cementless Phase 3 Oxford UKRs implanted by two surgeons for the recommended indications between June 2004 and October 2013 were prospectively identified and followed up independently. All the procedures were carried out through a minimally invasive approach without eversion or dislocation of the patella. Patients were assessed clinically pre-operatively and at 1, 2, 5, 7 and 10 years after surgery with functional outcome scores and radiographs.

Results

There were eight reoperations of which six were revisions giving a 5-year survival of 98 % (95 % CI 94–100 %). At a mean follow-up of 3.4 years (1.0–10.2), the mean OKS was 43 (SD 7), AKSS (objective) was 81 (SD 13), and AKSS (functional) was 86 (SD 17). The first 120 cases had a minimum follow-up of 5 years (mean 5.9; range 5–10.2). In these patients, the mean OKS was 41 (SD 8), AKSS (objective) was 81 (SD 14), and AKSS (functional) was 82 (SD 18). There were no femoral radiolucencies and no complete tibial radiolucencies. 11 % of tibial components had partial radiolucent lines; the remaining 89 % had no radiolucencies.

Conclusion

The clinical results are as good as or better than those previously reported for cemented fixation. The radiographic results are better with secure bony attachment to the implants in every case.

Level of evidence

IV.

Keywords

Unicompartmental knee replacement Cementless fixation Implant survival Functional outcome 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank B.E. Marks, J. Brown and J. Ferris for their assistance with this study. This study has been supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, based at Oxford University Hospitals Trust, Oxford. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. Financial support has been received from Biomet.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author or one or more of the authors have received or will receive benefits for personal or professional use from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article. In addition, benefits have been or will be directed to a research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other non-profit organisation with which one or more of the authors are associated.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdel Messih M, Naylor JM, Descallar J, Manickam A, Mittal R, Harris IA (2014) Mail versus telephone administration of the Oxford knee and hip scores. J Arthroplasty 29(3):491–494CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Akan B, Yildirim T, Karaguven D (2013) Medial femoral condyle fracture after cementless unicompartmental knee replacement: a rare complication. Knee 20(4):295–297CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Annual Report (2014). https://aoanjrr.dmac.adelaide.edu.au/documents/10180/172286/Annual%20Report%202014
  4. 4.
    Barrack RL, Nakamura SJ, Hopkins SG, Rosenzweig S (2004) Winner of the 2003 James A. Rand Young Investigator’s Award. Early failure of cementless mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 19:101–106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bergeson AG, Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr, Hurst JM, Morris MJ, Sneller MA (2013) Medial mobile bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: early survivorship and analysis of failures in 1000 consecutive cases. J Arthroplasty 28:172–175CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carlsson A, Bjorkman A, Besjakov J, Onsten I (2005) Cemented tibial component fixation performs better than cementless fixation: a randomized radiostereometric study comparing porous-coated, hydroxyapatite-coated and cemented tibial components over 5 years. Acta Orthop 76(3):362–369PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chockalingam S, Scott G (2000) The outcome of cemented vs. cementless fixation of a femoral component in total knee replacement (TKR) with the identification of radiological signs for the prediction of failure. Knee 7(4):233–238CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Epinette JA, Manley MT (2008) Is hydroxyapatite a reliable fixation option in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty? A 5- to 13-year experience with the hydroxyapatite-coated unix prosthesis. J Knee Surg 21(4):299–306CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Faour-Martin O, Valverde-Garcia JA, Martin-Ferrero MA, Vega-Castrillo A, de la Red Gallego MA, Suarez de Puga CC, Amigo-Linares L (2013) Oxford phase 3 unicondylar knee arthroplasty through a minimally invasive approach: long-term results. Int Orthop 37(5):833–838CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goodfellow JW, O’Connor J, Pandit H, Dodd C, Murray D (2015) Unicompartmental arthroplasty with the Oxford knee, 2nd edn. Goodfellow Publishers, Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gulati A, Chau R, Pandit HG, Gray H, Price AJ, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2009) The incidence of physiological radiolucency following Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement and its relationship to outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91(7):896–902CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hall MJ, Connell DA, Morris HG (2013) Medium to long-term results of the UNIX uncemented unicompartmental knee replacement. Knee 20(5):328–331CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:13–14Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kendrick BJ, Kaptein BL, Valstar ER, Gill HS, Jackson WF, Dodd CA, Price AJ, Murray DW (2015) Cemented versus cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using radiostereometric analysis: a randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint J 97-B(2):185–191CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lecuire F, Berard JB, Martres S (2014) Minimum 10-year follow-up results of ALPINA cementless hydroxyapatite-coated anatomic unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 24(3):385–394CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liddle AD, Pandit H, O’Brien S, Doran E, Penny ID, Hooper GJ, Burn PJ, Dodd CA, Beverland DE, Maxwell AR, Murray DW (2013) Cementless fixation in Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement: a multicentre study of 1000 knees. Bone Joint J 95B(2):181–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lim HC, Bae JH, Song SH, Kim SJ (2012) Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee replacement in Korean patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94(8):1071–1076CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Murray DW, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, Pandit H, Beard DJ, Carr AJ, Dawson J (2007) The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(8):1010–1014CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    National Joint Registy 10th Annual Report 2013 (2013). National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern IrelandGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nixon M, Taylor G, Sheldon P, Iqbal SJ, Harper W (2007) Does bone quality predict loosening of cemented total hip replacements? J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(10):1303–1308CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pandit H, Jenkins C, Barker K, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2006) The Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement using a minimally-invasive approach. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88(1):54–60CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pandit H, Jenkins C, Beard DJ, Gallagher J, Price AJ, Dodd CA, Goodfellow JW, Murray DW (2009) Cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement shows reduced radiolucency at one year. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91(2):185–189CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pandit H, Jenkins C, Gill HS, Barker K, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2011) Minimally invasive Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee replacement: results of 1000 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(2):198–204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pandit H, Jenkins C, Gill HS, Smith G, Price AJ, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2011) Unnecessary contraindications for mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(5):622–628CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pandit H, Liddle AD, Kendrick BJ, Jenkins C, Price AJ, Gill HS, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2013) Improved fixation in cementless unicompartmental knee replacement: five-year results of a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95(15):1365–1372CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Russell LA (2013) Osteoporosis and orthopedic surgery: effect of bone health on total joint arthroplasty outcome. Curr Rheumatol Rep 15(11):371CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Saxler G, Temmen D, Bontemps G (2004) Medium-term results of the AMC-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee 11(5):349–355CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Seeger JB, Haas D, Jager S, Rohner E, Tohtz S, Clarius M (2012) Extended sagittal saw cut significantly reduces fracture load in cementless unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compared to cemented tibia plateaus: an experimental cadaver study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(6):1087–1091CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sun L, Berndt CC, Khor KA, Cheang HN, Gross KA (2002) Surface characteristics and dissolution behavior of plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite coating. J Biomed Mater Res 62(2):228–236CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register Annual Report (2013). http://www.shpr.se/Libraries/Documents/AnnualReport_2013-04-1_1.sflb.ashx
  31. 31.
    Tegner Y, Lysholm J (1985) Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 198:43–49Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    The New Zealand Joint Registry Fourteen Year Report (2013). http://www.nzoa.org.nz/system/files/NJR%2014%20Year%20Report.pdf
  33. 33.
    Yoshida K, Tada M, Yoshida H, Takei S, Fukuoka S, Nakamura H (2013) Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in Japan—clinical results in greater than one thousand cases over ten years. J Arthroplasty 28:168–171CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. G. Pandit
    • 1
    • 2
  • S. Campi
    • 2
  • T. W. Hamilton
    • 2
  • O. D. Dada
    • 1
  • S. Pollalis
    • 1
  • C. Jenkins
    • 1
  • C. A. F. Dodd
    • 1
  • D. W. Murray
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Nuffield Orthopaedic CentreOxfordUK
  2. 2.Nuffield Department for Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS)University of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations