Lateral unicompartmental knee replacement for the treatment of arthritis progression after medial unicompartmental replacement

  • H. Pandit
  • F. Mancuso
  • C. Jenkins
  • W. F. M. Jackson
  • A. J. Price
  • C. A. F. Dodd
  • D. W. Murray



Lateral progression of arthritis following medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), although infrequent, is still the most common reason for revision surgery. Treatment options normally include conversion to total knee arthroplasty. An alternative strategy for some patients may be addition of a lateral UKA. We report the first results of staged bi-compartmental UKA (Bi-UKA) strategy.


We retrospectively selected from our UKA database patients who underwent a lateral UKA to treat a symptomatic lateral osteoarthritis progression after a medial UKA. The analysis included a clinical and radiological assessment of each patient.


Twenty-five patients for a total of 27 knees of staged Bi-UKA were carried out in a single centre. The mean time interval between primary medial UKA and the subsequent lateral UKA was 8.1 years (SD ± 4.6 years). The mean age at the time of the Bi-UKA was 77.1 years (SD ± 6.5 years). The median hospital stay was 3 (range 2–9 days) days, and the mean follow-up after Bi-UKA was 4 years (SD ± 1.9 years). The functional scores showed a significant improvement as compared to the pre-operative status (paired t test, p = 0.003). There were no radiological evidences of failure. None of the patients needed blood transfusion, and there was no significant complications related to the surgical procedure without further surgeries or revisions at final follow-up.


These results suggest that addition of a lateral UKA for arthritis progression following medial UKA is a good option in appropriately selected patients.

Level of evidence

Observational study without controls, Level IV.


Arthroplasty Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty Lateral arthritis progression Staged bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty 



The authors would like to thank all those who assisted with the collection and processing of data, particularly Jo Brown, Barbara Marks and Jenny Ferris.

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.

Ethical standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.


  1. 1.
    Argenson JN, Blanc G, Aubaniac JM, Parratte S (2013) Modern unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cement: a concise follow-up, at a mean of twenty years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95(10):905–909CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baker PN, Petheram T, Jameson SS, Avery PJ, Reed MR, Gregg PJ, Deehan DJ (2012) Comparison of patient-reported outcome measures following total and unicondylar knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94(7):919–927CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beard DJ, Pandit H, Gill HS, Hollinghurst D, Dodd CA, Murray DW (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(12):1597–1601CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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(1):63–69CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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):118–122CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goodfellow J, O’Connor J, Pandit H, Dodd CA, Murray D (2016; In Press) Unicompartmental arthroplasty with the Oxford knee. 2nd edn., OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goodfellow JW, O’Connor J (1986) Clinical results of the Oxford knee. Surface arthroplasty of the tibiofemoral joint with a meniscal bearing prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 205:21–42Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    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
  10. 10.
    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(3):367–373CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kendrick BJ, Rout R, Bottomley NJ, Pandit H, Gill HS, Price AJ, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2010) The implications of damage to the lateral femoral condyle on medial unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92(3):374–379CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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(6):722–731CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liddle AD, Judge A, Pandit H, Murray DW (2014) Adverse outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee replacement in 101,330 matched patients: a study of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet 384(9952):1437–1445CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lombardi AV Jr, Berend KR, Walter CA, Aziz-Jacobo J, Cheney NA (2009) Is recovery faster for mobile-bearing unicompartmental than total knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(6):1450–1457CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Manzotti A, Cerveri P, Pullen C, Confalonieri N (2014) A flat all-polyethylene tibial component in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a long-term study. Knee 21(Suppl 1):S20–S25CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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
  17. 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(6):983–989CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pandit H, Hamilton TW, Jenkins C, Mellon SJ, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2015) The clinical outcome of minimally invasive Phase 3 Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a 15-year follow-up of 1000 UKAs. Bone Joint J 97-B(11):1493–1500CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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
  20. 20.
    Price AJ, Svard U (2011) A second decade lifetable survival analysis of the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(1):174–179CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Romagnoli S, Marullo M, Massaro M, Rustemi E, D’Amario F, Corbella M (2015) Bi-unicompartmental and combined uni plus patellofemoral replacement: indications and surgical technique. Joints 3(1):42–48PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sun PF, Jia YH (2012) Mobile bearing UKA compared to fixed bearing TKA: a randomized prospective study. Knee 19(2):103–106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tegner Y, Lysholm J (1985) Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 198:43–49Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tibrewal SB, Grant KA, Goodfellow JW (1984) The radiolucent line beneath the tibial components of the Oxford meniscal knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br 66(4):523–528PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Weston-Simons JS, Pandit H, Kendrick BJ, Jenkins C, Barker K, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2014) The mid-term outcomes of the Oxford Domed Lateral unicompartmental knee replacement. Bone Joint J 96-B(1):59–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Pandit
    • 1
  • F. Mancuso
    • 1
    • 2
  • C. Jenkins
    • 1
  • W. F. M. Jackson
    • 1
  • A. J. Price
    • 1
  • C. A. F. Dodd
    • 1
  • D. W. Murray
    • 1
  1. 1.Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS)University of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.Orthopaedics and Traumatology Unit“Santa Maria della Misericordia” University HospitalUdineItaly

Personalised recommendations