International Orthopaedics

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 315–322 | Cite as

Comparison of the outcomes of navigation-assisted revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty versus navigation-assisted primary TKA

  • Han-Jun Lee
  • Yong-Beom Park
  • Min-Ku Song
  • Yoon-Ho Kwak
  • Seong Hwan KimEmail author
Original Paper



Revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is technically demanding but can be performed with computer navigation system guidance. The purpose of this study was (1) to compare the outcomes of revision of UKA to TKA to those of primary TKA and (2) to describe a surgical technique for the revision of UKA to TKA using a navigation system.


From May 2011 to April 2014, a total of 298 knees underwent primary navigation-assisted TKA (group 1), and navigation-assisted UKA revision to TKA was performed in 15 patients (group 2). One to three propensity score matching was performed to compare the two groups after a minimum of three years of follow-up. Radiographic and clinical outcomes in addition to radiolucent lines were evaluated during follow-up.


In group 1, there was one case that required metal block augmentation with the long stem under the tibial plate due to severe bone loss, while in other cases, short stems were used, and cement and autogenous bone grafts were used to fill bone defects due to minimal bone loss. Pre- and post-operative outcomes were significantly improved in both groups (p < 0.001). There were no statistical differences between groups in pre- and post-operative outcomes except post-operative Knee Society Function Score (KSFS) (p = 0.008). There were no radiolucent lines in the tibia or femur in either group during follow-up.


With the use of an appropriate surgical technique, navigation-assisted revision of UKA to TKA can yield clinical and radiologic outcomes comparable to those of primary navigation-assisted TKA.

Level of Evidence: Level IV


Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revision Navigation system Total knee arthroplasty 


Compliance with ethical standards

This study was approved by the appropriate ethics committee of our hospital.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest (IRB No:1612-009-16023).

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.


  1. 1.
    Arirachakaran A, Choowit P, Putananon C, Muangsiri S, Kongtharvonskul J (2015) Is unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) superior to total knee arthroplasty (TKA)? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 25(5):799–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Citak M, Dersch K, Kamath AF, Haasper C, Gehrke T, Kendoff D (2014) Common causes of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a single-centre analysis of four hundred and seventy one cases. Int Orthop 38(5):961–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Emerson RH, Alnachoukati O, Barrington J, Ennin K (2016) The results of Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the United States: a mean ten-year survival analysis. Bone Joint J 98-B(10 Supple B):34–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chou DT, Swamy GN, Lewis JR, Badhe NP (2012) Revision of failed unicompartmental knee replacement to total knee replacement. Knee 19(4):356–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Craik JD, El Shafie SA, Singh VK, Twyman RS (2015) Revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 30(4):592–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Miller M, Benjamin JB, Marson B, Hollstien S (2002) The effect of implant constraint on results of conversion of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 25(12):1353–1357 discussion 1357Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jarvenpaa J, Kettunen J, Miettinen H, Kroger H (2010) The clinical outcome of revision knee replacement after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty: 8-17 years follow-up study of 49 patients. Int Orthop 34(5):649–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pearse AJ, Hooper GJ, Rothwell AG, Frampton C (2012) Osteotomy and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty converted to total knee arthroplasty: data from the New Zealand Joint Registry. J Arthroplast 27(10):1827–1831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chatain F, Denjean S, Delalande JL, Chavane H, Bejui-Hugues J, Guyen O (2012) Computer-navigated revision total knee arthroplasty for failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 98(6):720–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johnson S, Jones P, Newman JH (2007) The survivorship and results of total knee replacements converted from unicompartmental knee replacements. Knee 14(2):154–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pietschmann MF, Ficklscherer A, Wohlleb L, Schmidutz F, Jansson V, Muller PE (2014) UKA can be safely revised to primary knee arthroplasty by using an autologous bone plate from the proximal lateral tibia. J Arthroplast 29(10):1991–1995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thienpont E (2017) Conversion of a unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to a total knee arthroplasty: can we achieve a primary result? Bone Joint J 99-B(1 Supple A):65–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wynn Jones H, Chan W, Harrison T, Smith TO, Masonda P, Walton NP (2012) Revision of medial Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement to a total knee replacement: similar to a primary? Knee 19(4):339–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Choong PF, Dowsey MM, Stoney JD (2009) Does accurate anatomical alignment result in better function and quality of life? Comparing conventional and computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 24(4):560–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Saragaglia D, Cognault J, Refaie R, Rubens-Duval B, Mader R, Rouchy RC, Plaweski S, Pailhe R (2015) Computer navigation for revision of unicompartmental knee replacements to total knee replacements: the results of a case-control study of forty six knees comparing computer navigated and conventional surgery. Int Orthop 39(9):1779–1784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Saragaglia D, Marques Da Silva B, Dijoux P, Cognault J, Gaillot J, Pailhe R (2017) Computerised navigation of unicondylar knee prostheses: from primary implantation to revision to total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 41(2):293–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Feller JA, Bartlett RJ, Lang DM (1996) Patellar resurfacing versus retention in total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 78(2):226–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ko YB, Jang EC, Park SM, Kim SH, Kwak YH, Lee HJ (2015) No difference in clinical and radiologic outcomes after total knee arthroplasty with a new ultra-congruent mobile bearing system and rotating platform mobile bearing systems after minimum 5-year follow-up. J Arthroplast 30(3):379–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee HJ, Lee JS, Jung HJ, Song KS, Yang JJ, Park CW (2011) Comparison of joint line position changes after primary bilateral total knee arthroplasty performed using the navigation-assisted measured gap resection or gap balancing techniques. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19(12):2027–2032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim D, Seong SC, Lee MC, Lee S (2012) Comparison of the tibiofemoral rotational alignment after mobile and fixed bearing total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(2):337–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ewald FC (1989) The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:9–12Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Austin PC (2009) Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med 28(25):3083–3107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Padgett DE, Stern SH, Insall JN (1991) Revision total knee arthroplasty for failed unicompartmental replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 73(2):186–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sarraf KM, Konan S, Pastides PS, Haddad FS, Oussedik S (2013) Bone loss during revision of unicompartmental to total knee arthroplasty: an analysis of implanted polyethylene thickness from the National Joint Registry data. J Arthroplast 28(9):1571–1574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lunebourg A, Parratte S, Ollivier M, Abdel MP, Argenson JN (2015) Are revisions of unicompartmental knee arthroplasties more like a primary or revision TKA? J Arthroplast 30(11):1985–1989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tew M, Forster IW (1987) Effect of knee replacement on flexion deformity. J Bone Joint Surg Br 69(3):395–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Confalonieri N, Manzotti A, Chemello C, Cerveri P (2010) Computer-assisted revision of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 33(10 Suppl):52–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Saldanha KA, Keys GW, Svard UC, White SH, Rao C (2007) Revision of Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty—results of a multicentre study. Knee 14(4):275–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Victor J (2009) Rotational alignment of the distal femur: a literature review. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 95(5):365–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryChung-Ang University Hospital, Chung-Ang UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hanmaeum Changwon HospitalHan-Yang UniversityChangwon-SiSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations