Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Larger range of motion and increased return to activity, but higher revision rates following unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in patients under 65: a systematic review

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

Abstract

Purpose

Due to the lack of comparative studies, a systematic review was conducted to determine revision rates of unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty (UKA and TKA), and compare functional outcomes, range of motion and activity scores in patients less than 65 years of age.

Methods

A literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane systems since 2000. 27 UKA and 33 TKA studies were identified and included. Annual revision rate (ARR), functional outcomes, and return to activity were assessed for both types of arthroplasty using independent t tests.

Results

Four level I studies, 12 level II, 16 level III, and 29 level IV were included, which reported on outcomes in 2224 UKAs and 4737 TKAs. UKA studies reported 183 revisions, yielding an ARR of 1.00 and extrapolated 10-year survivorship of 90.0%. TKA studies reported 324 TKA revisions, resulting in an ARR of 0.53 and extrapolated 10-year survivorship of 94.7%. Functional outcomes scores following UKA and TKA were equivalent, however, following UKA larger ROM (125° versus 114°, p = 0.004) and higher UCLA scores were observed compared to TKA (6.9 versus 6.0, n.s.).

Conclusion

These results show that good-to-excellent outcomes can be achieved following UKA and TKA in patients less than 65 years of age. A higher ARR was noted following UKA compared to TKA. However, improved functional outcomes, ROM and return to activity were found after UKA than TKA in this young population. Comparative studies are needed to confirm these findings and assess factors contributing to failure at the younger patient population. Outcomes of UKA and TKA in patients younger than 65 years are both satisfying, and therefore, both procedures are not contraindicated at younger age. UKA has several important advantages over TKA in this young and frequently more active population.

Level of evidence

IV.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Diduch DR, Insall JN, Scott WN, Scuderi GR, Font-Rodriguez D (1997) Total knee replacement in young, active patients. Long-term follow-up and functional outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79(4):575–582

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Gioe TJ, Novak C, Sinner P, Ma W, Mehle S (2007) Knee arthroplasty in the young patient: survival in a community registry. Clin Orthop Relat Res 464(464):83–87

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Goh GS-H, Liow MHL, Bin Abd Razak HR, Tay DK-J, Lo N-N, Yeo S-J (2017) Patient-reported outcomes, quality of Life, and satisfaction rates in young patients aged 50 years or younger after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 32(2):419–425

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lonner JH, Hershman S, Mont M, Lotke PA (2000) Total knee arthroplasty in patients 40 years of age and younger with osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 380:85–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kozinn SC, Scott R (1989) Unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 71(1):145–150

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Liddle AD, Pandit H, O’Brien S, Doran E, Penny ID, Hooper GJ, Burn PJ, Dodd CAF, Beverland DE, Maxwell AR, Murray DW (2013) Cementless fixation in Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement: a multicentre study of 1000 knees. Bone Joint J 95–B(2):181–187

  7. Pandit H, Jenkins C, Gill HS, Smith G, Price a J, Dodd C a Murray F DW (2011) Unnecessary contraindications for mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(5):622–628

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Pearle AD, O’Loughlin PF, Kendoff DO (2010) Robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 25(2):230–237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bolognesi MP, Greiner MA, Attarian DE, Watters TS, Wellman SS, Curtis LH, Berend KR, Setoguchi S (2013) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty among Medicare beneficiaries, 2000 to 2009. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95(22):e174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ho JC, Stitzlein RN, Green CJ, Stoner T, Froimson MI (2016) Return to sports activity following UKA and TKA. J Knee Surg 29(3):254–259

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hopper GP, Leach WJ (2008) Participation in sporting activities following knee replacement: total versus unicompartmental. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 16(10):973–979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Naal FD, Fischer M, Preuss A, Goldhahn J, von Knoch F, Preiss S, Munzinger U, Drobny T (2007) Return to sports and recreational activity after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Am J Sports Med 35(10):1688–1695

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Vorlat P, Putzeys G, Cottenie D, Van Isacker T, Pouliart N, Handelberg F, Casteleyn P-P, Gheysen F, Verdonk R (2006) The Oxford unicompartmental knee prosthesis: an independent 10-year survival analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 14(1):40–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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):112–116

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Witjes S, Gouttebarge V, Kuijer PPFM., van Geenen RCI, Poolman RW, Kerkhoffs GMMJ. (2016) Return to sports and physical activity after total and unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med 46(2):269–292

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Registry (2015) Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Annual Report 2015

  17. National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland (2015) 12th Annual Report 2015

  18. New Zealand Joint Registry (2014) The New Zealand Registry Annual Report

  19. Wright JG, Swiontkowski MF, Heckman JD (2003) Introducing levels of evidence to the journal. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85–A(1):1–3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J (2003) Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 73(9):712–716

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Chawla H, van der List JP, Christ AB, Sobrero MR, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD (2017) Annual revision rates of partial versus total knee arthroplasty: a comparative meta-analysis. Knee 24(2):179–190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. van der List JP, Chawla H, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD (2017) Survivorship and functional outcomes of patellofemoral arthroplasty: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25(8):2622–2631

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pabinger C, Benjamin Lumenta D, Cupak D, Berghold A, Boehler N, Labek G (2015) Quality of outcome data in knee arthroplasty comparison of registry data and worldwide non-registry studies from 4 decades. Acta Orthop 86(1):58–62

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Pabinger C, Berghold A, Boehler N, Labek G (2013) Revision rates after knee replacement. Cumulative results from worldwide clinical studies versus joint registers. Osteoarthr Cartil 21(2):263–268

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Belmont PJJ, Heida K, Keeney JA, Hamilton W, Burks R, Waterman BR (2015) Return to work and functional outcomes following primary total knee arthroplasty in U.S. Military servicemembers. J Arthroplasty 30(6):968–972

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Biswas D, Van Thiel GS, Wetters NG, Pack BJ, Berger RA, Della Valle CJ (2014) Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients less than 55 years old: minimum of two years of follow-up. J Arthroplasty 29(1):101–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bruni D, Akkawi I, Iacono F, Raspugli GF, Gagliardi M, Nitri M, Grassi A, Zaffagnini S, Bignozzi S, Marcacci M (2013) Minimum thickness of all-poly tibial component unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients younger than 60 years does not increase revision rate for aseptic loosening. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21(11):2462–2467

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Callaghan JJ, Martin CT, Gao Y, Pugely AJ, Liu SS, Goetz DD, Kelley SS, Johnston RC (2015) What can be learned from minimum 20-year followup studies of knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(1):94–100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Collier MB, Eickmann TH, Sukezaki F, McAuley JP, Engh GA (2006) Patient, implant, and alignment factors associated with revision of medial compartment unicondylar arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 21(6 Suppl 2):108–115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Elmallah RDK, Jauregui JJ, Cherian JJ, Pierce TP, Harwin SF, Mont MA (2016) Effect of age on postoperative outcomes following total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 29(8):673–678

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Faour MO, Valverde GJ, Martín FMÁ, Vega CA, Zuil AP, Suárez DPC (2015) The young patient and the medial unicompartmental knee replacement. Acta Orthop Belg 81(2):283–288

    Google Scholar 

  32. Felts E, Parratte S, Pauly V, Aubaniac J, Argenson J (2010) Function and quality of life following medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients 60 years of age or younger. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 96(8):861–867

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Forsythe ME, Englund RE, Leighton RK (2000) Unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a cementless perspective. Can J Surg 43(6):417–424

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Gao F, Henricson A, Nilsson KG (2009) Cemented versus uncemented fixation of the femoral component of the NexGen CR total knee replacement in patients younger than 60 years. A prospective randomised controlled RSA study. Knee 16(3):200–206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hamilton TW, Pandit HG, Jenkins C, Mellon SJ, Dodd CAF, Murray DW (2017) Evidence-based indications for mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in a consecutive cohort of thousand knees. J Arthroplasty 32(6):1779–1785

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Henricson a, Linder L, Nilsson KG (2008) A trabecular metal tibial component in total knee replacement in patients younger than 60 years: a two-year radiostereophotogrammetric analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90(12):1585–1593

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Heyse TJ, Khefacha A, Peersman G, Cartier P (2012) Survivorship of UKA in the middle-aged. Knee 19(5):585–591

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Illgen R, Tueting J, Enright T, Schreibman K, McBeath A, Heiner J (2004) Hybrid total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective analysis of clinical and radiographic outcomes at average 10 years follow-up. J Arthroplasty 19(7 Suppl 2):95–100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ingale PA, Hadden WA (2013) A review of mobile bearing unicompartmental knee in patients aged 80 years or older and comparison with younger groups. J Arthroplasty 28(2):262–267

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kamath AF, Lee G-C, Sheth NP, Nelson CL, Garino JP, Israelite CL (2011) Prospective results of uncemented tantalum monoblock tibia in total knee arthroplasty: minimum 5-year follow-up in patients younger than 55 years. J Arthroplasty 26(8):1390–1395

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Keenan ACM, Wood AM, Arthur CA, Jenkins PJ, Brenkel IJ, Walmsley PJ (2012) Ten-year survival of cemented total knee replacement in patients aged less than 55 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94(7):928–931

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Keeney JA, Nunley RM, Wright RW, Barrack RL, Clohisy JC (2014) Are younger patients undergoing TKAs appropriately characterized as active? Clin Orthop Relat Res 472(4):1210–1216

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Von Keudell A, Sodha S, Collins J, Minas T, Fitz W, Gomoll AH (2014) Patient satisfaction after primary total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: an age-dependent analysis. Knee 21(1):180–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kievit AJ, Schafroth MU, Blankevoort L, Sierevelt IN, van Dijk CN, van Geenen RCI (2014) Early experience with the Vanguard complete total knee system: 2–7 years of follow-up and risk factors for revision. J Arthroplasty 29(2):348–354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kim Y-H, Choi Y, Kim J-S (2010) Osteolysis in well-functioning fixed- and mobile-bearing TKAs in younger patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(11):3084–3093

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Kim Y-H, Park J-W, Kim J-S (2016) A comparison of 5 models of total knee arthroplasty in young patients. J Arthroplasty 31(5):994–999

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Kim Y-H, Park J-W, Kim J-S, Lee J-H (2015) Highly crosslinked-remelted versus less-crosslinked polyethylene in posterior cruciate-retaining TKAs in the same patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(11):3588–3594

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Kim Y-J, Kim B, Yoo S, Kang S, Kwack C, Song M-H (2017) Mid-term results of Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in young Asian patients less than 60 years of age: a minimum 5-year follow-up. Knee Surg Relat Res 29(2):122–128

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Kiran A, Bottomley N, Biant LC, Javaid MK, Carr AJ, Cooper C, Field RE, Murray DW, Price A, Beard DJ, Arden NK (2015) Variations in good patient reported outcomes after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 30(8):1364–1371

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Kort NP, Van Raay JJAM., Van Horn JJ (2007) The Oxford phase III unicompartmental knee replacement in patients less than 60 years of age. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 15(4):356–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Kristensen PW, Holm HA, Varnum C (2013) Up to 10-year follow-up of the Oxford medial partial knee arthroplasty—695 cases from a single institution. J Arthroplasty 28(9 Suppl):195–198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Krych AJ, Reardon P, Sousa P, Pareek A, Stuart M, Pagnano M (2017) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty provides higher activity and durability than valgus-producing proximal tibial osteotomy at 5 to 7 years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 99(2):113–122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Lee JH, Barnett SL, Patel JJ, Nassif NA, Cummings DJ, Gorab RS (2016) Ten year follow-up of gap balanced, rotating platform total knee arthroplasty in patients under 60 years of age. J Arthroplasty 31(1):132–136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Lizaur-Utrilla A, Miralles-Muñoz FA, Lopez-Prats FA (2014) Similar survival between screw cementless and cemented tibial components in young patients with osteoarthritis. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 22(7):1585–1590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Long WJ, Bryce CD, Hollenbeak CS, Benner RW, Scott WN (2014) Total knee replacement in young, active patients: long-term follow-up and functional outcome: a concise follow-up of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96(18):e159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. McCalden RW, Robert CE, Howard JL, Naudie DD, McAuley JP, MacDonald SJ (2013) Comparison of outcomes and survivorship between patients of different age groups following TKA. J Arthroplasty 28(8 Suppl):83–86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Meding JB, Wing JT, Keating EM, Ritter MA (2007) Total knee arthroplasty for isolated patellofemoral arthritis in younger patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res 464:78–82

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Meftah M, White PB, Ranawat AS, Ranawat CS (2016) Long-term results of total knee arthroplasty in young and active patients with posterior stabilized design. Knee 23(2):318–321

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Miettinen SSA, Torssonen SK, Miettinen HJA, Soininvaara T (2016) Mid-term results of Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasties at a small-volume center. Scand J Surg 105(1):56–63

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Mont MA, Sayeed SA, Osuji O, Johnson AJ, Naziri Q, Delanois RE, Bonutti PM (2012) Total knee arthroplasty in patients 40 years and younger. J Knee Surg 25(1):65–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Nilsson KG, Henricson A, Norgren B, Dalén T (2006) Uncemented HA-coated implant is the optimum fixation for TKA in the young patient. Clin Orthop Relat Res 448:129–139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Nunley RM, Nam D, Berend KR, Lombardi AV, Dennis DA, Della Valle CJ, Barrack RL (2015) New total knee arthroplasty designs: do young patients notice? Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(1):101–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Odland AN, Callaghan JJ, Liu SS, Wells CW (2011) Wear and lysis is the problem in modular TKA in the young OA patient at 10 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(1):41–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Parratte S, Pauly V, Aubaniac JM, Argenson JNA (2012) No long-term difference between fixed and mobile medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(1):61–68

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Parvizi J, Nunley RM, Berend KR, Lombardi AVJ, Ruh EL, Clohisy JC, Hamilton WG, Della Valle CJ, Barrack RL (2014) High level of residual symptoms in young patients after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472(1):133–137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Pennington DW, Swienckowski JJ, Lutes WB, Drake GN (2003) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients sixty years of age or younger. J Bone Jt Surg Ser A 85(10):1968–1973

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Price AJ, Dodd CAF, Svard UGC, Murray DW (2005) Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients younger and older than 60 years of age. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87(11):1488–1492

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Ranawat AS, Mohanty SS, Goldsmith SE, Rasquinha VJ, Rodriguez JA, Ranawat CS (2005) Experience with an all-polyethylene total knee arthroplasty in younger, active patients with follow-up from 2 to 11 years. J Arthroplasty 20(7 Suppl 3):7–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Rand JA, Trousdale RT, Ilstrup DM, Harmsen WS (2003) Factors affecting the durability of primary total knee prostheses. J Bone Jt Surg Am 85–A(2):259–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Roberts TD, Clatworthy MG, Frampton CM, Young SW (2015) Does computer assisted navigation improve functional outcomes and implant survivability after total knee arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty 30(9 Suppl):59–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Sébilo A, Casin C, Lebel B, Rouvillain J-L, Chapuis S, Bonnevialle P (2013) members of the Société d’Orthopédie et de Traumatologie de l’Ouest (SOO) (2013) Clinical and technical factors influencing outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: retrospective multicentre study of 944 knees. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 99(4 SUPPL):S227–S234

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Streit MR, Streit J, Walker T, Bruckner T, Philippe Kretzer J, Ewerbeck V, Merle C, Aldinger PR, Gotterbarm T (2015) Minimally invasive Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in young patients. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 25(3):660–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Tabor OB Jr, Tabor OB, Bernard M, Wan JY (2005) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: long-term success in middle-age and obese patients. J Surg Orthop Adv 14(2):59–63

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Tai CC, Cross MJ (2006) Five- to 12-year follow-up of a hydroxyapatite-coated, cementless total knee replacement in young, active patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88(9):1158–1163

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Vazquez-Vela Johnson G, Worland RL, Keenan J, Norambuena N (2003) Patient demographics as a predictor of the ten-year survival rate in primary total knee replacement. J Bone Jt Surg 85(1):52–56

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Venkatesh HK, Maheswaran SS (2015) Mid-term results of Miller-Galante unicompartmental knee replacement for medial compartment knee osteoarthritis. J Orthop Traumatol 17(3):199–206

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Vessely MB, Whaley AL, Harmsen WS, Schleck CD, Berry DJ (2006) The Chitranjan Ranawat award: long-term survivorship and failure modes of 1000 cemented condylar total knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 452:28–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Walker T, Streit J, Gotterbarm T, Bruckner T, Merle C, Streit MR (2015) Sports, physical activity and patient-reported outcomes after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in young patients. J Arthroplasty 30(11):1911–1916

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Whiteside LA, Vigano R (2007) Young and heavy patients with a cementless TKA do as well as older and lightweight patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res 464:93–98

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Wing CK, Kwok-Hing C (2012) Sixteen years’ result of posterior-stabilized TKA. J Knee Surg 25(3):245–248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Yim J-H, Song E-K, Seo H-Y, Kim M-S, Seon J-K (2013) Comparison of high tibial osteotomy and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum follow-up of 3 years. J Arthroplasty 28(2):243–247

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. El-Tawil S, Arendt E, Parker D (2016) Position statement: the epidemiology, pathogenesis and risk factors of osteoarthritis of the knee. J ISAKOS Jt Disord Orthop Sport Med 1(4):219–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Hooper G, Lee AJ, Rothwell A, Frampton C (2014) Current trends and projections in the utilisation rates of hip and knee replacement in New Zealand from 2001 to 2026. N Z Med J 127(1401):82–93

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Jt Surg Am 89(4):780–785

    Google Scholar 

  85. Furnes O, Espehaug B, Lie S, Vollset SE, Engesaeter LB, Havelin LI (2007) Failure mechanisms after unicompartmental and tricompartmental primary knee replacement with cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(3):519–525

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. 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):1437–1445

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Chatellard R, Sauleau V, Colmar M, Robert H, Raynaud G, Brilhault J (2013) Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: does tibial component position influence clinical outcomes and arthroplasty survival? Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 99(4 Suppl):S219–S225

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Hernigou P, Deschamps G (2004) Alignment influences wear in the knee after medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 423:161–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Vasso M, Del Regno C, D’Amelio A, Viggiano D, Corona K, Schiavone Panni A (2015) Minor varus alignment provides better results than neutral alignment in medial UKA. Knee 22(2):117–121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Li Y, Wang S, Wang Y, Yang M (2017) Does kinematic alignment improve short-term functional outcomes after total knee arthroplasty compared with mechanical alignment? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Knee Surg. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1602136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. van der List JP, Chawla H, Pearle AD (2016) Robotic-Assisted Knee Arthroplasty: An Overview. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 45(4):202–211

    Google Scholar 

  92. Barbadoro P, Ensini A, Leardini A, D’Amato M, Feliciangeli A, Timoncini A, Amadei F, Belvedere C, Giannini S (2014) Tibial component alignment and risk of loosening in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a radiographic and radiostereometric study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22(12):3157–3162

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Zuiderbaan HA, van der List JP, Chawla H, Khamaisy S, Thein R, Pearle AD (2016) Predictors of subjective outcome after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 31(7):1453–1458

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ, Murray DW (2010) A critique of revision rate as an outcome measure: re-interpretation of knee joint registry data. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92(12):1628–1631

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Baker P, Jameson S, Critchley R, Reed M, Gregg P, Deehan D (2013) 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 95(8):702–709

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Baker PN, Petheram T, Avery PJ, Gregg PJ, Deehan DJ (2012) Revision for unexplained pain following unicompartmental and total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94(17):e126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Koskinen E, Eskelinen A, Paavolainen P, Pulkkinen P, Remes V (2008) Comparison of survival and cost-effectiveness between unicondylar arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty in patients with primary osteoarthritis: a follow-up study of 50,493 knee replacements from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 79(4):499–507

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Niinimäki T, Eskelinen A, Mäkelä K, Ohtonen P, Puhto A-P, Remes V (2014) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty survivorship is lower than TKA survivorship: a 27-year Finnish registry study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472(5):1496–1501

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Rodriguez-Merchan EC (2014) Medial unicompartmental osteoarthritis (MUO) of the knee: unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) or total knee replacement (TKR). Arch bone Jt Surg 2(3):137–140

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. Isaac SM, Barker KL, Danial IN, Beard DJ, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2007) Does arthroplasty type influence knee joint proprioception? A longitudinal prospective study comparing total and unicompartmental arthroplasty. Knee 14(3):212–217

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Thompson SAJ, Liabaud B, Nellans KW, Geller JA (2013) Factors associated with poor outcomes following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: redefining the “classic” indications for surgery. J Arthroplasty 28(9):1561–1564

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Behrend H, Giesinger K, Giesinger JM, Kuster MS (2012) The “Forgotten Joint” as the ultimate goal in joint arthroplasty. Validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure. J Arthroplasty 27(3):430–436

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Zuiderbaan HA, van der List JP, Khamaisy S, Nawabi DH, Thein R, Ishmael C, Paul S, Pearle AD (2017) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty: which type of artificial joint do patients forget? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25(3):681–686

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:13–14

    Google Scholar 

  105. Na SE, Ha CW, Lee CH (2012) A new high-flexion knee scoring system to eliminate the ceiling effect. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(2):584–593

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Zahiri CA, Schmalzried TP, Szuszczewicz ES, Amstutz HC (1998) Assessing activity in joint replacement patients. J Arthroplasty 13(8):890–895

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  107. Waldstein W, Kolbitsch P, Koller U, Boettner F, Windhager R (2016) Sport and physical activity following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Knee Surgery Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 25(3):1–12

    Google Scholar 

  108. Bini S, Khatod M, Cafri G, Chen Y, Paxton EW (2013) Surgeon, implant, and patient variables may explain variability in early revision rates reported for unicompartmental arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95(24):2195–2202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Dy CJ, Marx RG, Bozic KJ, Pan TJ, Padgett DE, Lyman S (2014) Risk factors for revision within 10 years of total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472(4):1198–1207

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Harrysson OLA, Robertsson O, Nayfeh JF (2004) Higher cumulative revision rate of knee arthroplasties in younger patients with osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 421:162–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Jeschke E, Gehrke T, Günster C, Hassenpflug J, Malzahn J, Niethard FU, Schräder P, Zacher J, Halder A (2016) Five-year survival of 20,946 unicondylar knee replacements and patient risk factors for failure: an analysis of German insurance data. J Bone Joint Surg Am 98(20):1691–1698

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Badawy M, Espehaug B, Indrekvam K, Havelin LI, Furnes O (2014) Higher revision risk for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in low-volume hospitals Data from 5,791 cases in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 85(4):342–347

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. van der List JP, McDonald LS, Pearle AD (2015) Systematic review of medial versus lateral survivorship in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee 22(6):454–460

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Kara Fields from the Healthcare Research Institute for her assistance in the statistical analysis of this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Sports Medicine and Shoulder Service, Hospital for Special Surgery, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, 535 East 70th St, New York, New York, 10021, USA

    Laura J. Kleeblad & Andrew D. Pearle

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Noordwest Hospital, Alkmaar, The Netherlands

    Jelle P. van der List & Hendrik A. Zuiderbaan

Authors
  1. Laura J. Kleeblad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jelle P. van der List
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hendrik A. Zuiderbaan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrew D. Pearle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

LK performed the literature search, scanned all abstracts and full texts of the included articles and wrote the manuscript. JL screened all abstracts and full texts as a second author, helped to draft the manuscript. HA determined the quality of all included studies and helped to draft the manuscript. AP coordinated this study, participated in its design and helped to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura J. Kleeblad.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Andrew D. Pearle is a consultant and receives research support from Stryker Corp, and has royalties from Zimmer Biomet. The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Funding

No funding has been received for this study.

Ethical approval

No ethical approval was obtained, because this study was a systematic review using de-identified data from other cohort studies.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not applicable for this study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kleeblad, L.J., van der List, J.P., Zuiderbaan, H.A. et al. Larger range of motion and increased return to activity, but higher revision rates following unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in patients under 65: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26, 1811–1822 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4817-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4817-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation