Advertisement

Analysis of 13 early failures of the mobile bearing Oxford phase III unicompartmental knee prosthesis

  • Mujtaba NassiriEmail author
  • John F. Quinlan
  • John M. O’Byrne
Original Article

Abstract

The use of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty appears to be increasing despite a significant number of early revisions. This study looks at a consecutive series of such procedures. We retrospectively reviewed thirteen patients who had a revision of a unicompartmental knee replacement between January 2003 and March 2008 inclusively. During the study period, a total of 141 UKAs were performed in the reporting unit, of those 9 were revised to TKA. The indication for revision to TKA was determined from clinical records and radiographs. All patients who underwent revision were followed up using Oxford Knee Score. No preoperative Oxford Knee Scores were available. The study group consisted of six men and seven women. The preoperative diagnosis was osteoarthritis in all cases. The mean follow-up time was 16.4 ± 10.7 months (range: 2–36 months). The mean age of the patients at time of revision was 60.8 ± 9.7 years (range: 50–77 years). All patients had undergone medial UKA. The mean time interval between primary surgery and revision surgery was 21.5 ± 13.4 months (range: 5–48 months). The indications for revision included loosening of the tibial and/or femoral component (n = 7), progression of osteoarthritis to lateral compartment (n = 2), unexplained medial knee pain (n = 2) patellofemoral symptoms (n = 1), and insert dislocation (n = 1). The mean postoperative Oxford Knee Score at the latest follow-up evaluation was 14 ± 6.5 (range: 5–26). For the majority of patients, UKA provides reliable and reproducible results. However, UKA is a demanding procedure that needs special experience and includes a risk of early failure.

Keywords

Indications Revision Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty 

Notes

Conflict of interest statement

No benefits in any form have been or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Amin AK, Patton JT, Cook RE et al (2006) Unicompartmental or total knee arthroplasty? Results from a matched study. Clin Orthop 451:101–106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berger RA, Meneghini RM, Jacobs JJ et al (2005) Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum of ten years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg 87-A:999–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pandit H, Jenkins C, Barker K et al (2006) The Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement using a minimally-invasive approach. J Bone Joint Surg 88-B:54–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Robertsson O, Knutson K, Lewold S, Lidgren L (2001) The routine of surgical management reduces failure after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 83-B:45–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Robertsson O, Borgquist L, Knutson K et al (1999) Use of unicompartmental instead of tricompartmental prostheses for unicompartmental arthrosis in the knee is a cost-effective alternative. 15, 437 primary tricompartmental prostheses were compared with 10, 624 primary medial or lateral unicompartmental prostheses. Acta Orthop Scand 70(2):170–175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sculco TP (2002) Orthopaedic crossfire-can we justify unicondylar arthroplasty as a temporizing procedure? In opposition. J Arthroplasty 17(4 Suppl 1):56–58CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Laurencin CT, Zelicof SB, Scott RD et al (1991) Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in the same patient. A comparative study. Clin Orthop (273):151–156Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rougraff BT, Heck DA, Gibson AE (1991) A comparison of tricompartmental and unicompartmental arthroplasty for the treatment of gonarthrosis. Clin Orthop (273):157–164Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heck DA, Marmor L, Gibson A et al (1993) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. A multicenter investigation with long term follow-up evaluation. Clin Orthop (286):154–159Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Beard DJ, Murray DW, Rees JL et al (2002) Accelerated recovery for unicompartmental knee replacement—a feasibility study. Knee 9(3):221–224CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bert JM (2005) Unicompartmental knee replacement. Orthop Clin North Am 36(4):513–522CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lai CH, Rand JA (1993) Revision of failed unicompartmental total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop (287):193–201Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Padgett DE, Stern SH, Insall JN (1991) Revision total knee arthroplasty for failed unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg 73-A:186–190Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Insall JN, Dethmers DA (1982) Revision of total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop (170):123–130Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Saleh KJ, Dykes DC, Tweedie RL et al (2002) Functional outcome after total knee arthroplasty revision: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 17(8):967–977CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Argenson JN, Chevrol-Benkeddache Y, Aubaniac JM (2002) Modern unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cement: a three to ten-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg 84-A:2235–2239PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Svärd UC, Price AJ (2001) Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. A survival analysis of an independent series. J Bone Joint Surg 83-B:191–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Insall J, Aglietti P (1980) A five to seven-year follow-up of unicondylar arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 62-A:1329–1337Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marmor L (1985) Unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop (192):75–81Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D et al (1998) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg 80-B:63–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    O’Connor JJ, Goodfellow JW (1996) Theory and practice of meniscal knee replacement: designing against wear. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H] 210(3):217–222Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Murray DW, Goodfellow DW, O’Connor JJ (1998) The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a ten-year survival study. J Bone Joint Surg 80-B:983–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ahlbäck S (1968) Osteoarthrosis of the knee. A radiographic investigation. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh) Suppl 277:7–72Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chesnut WJ (1991) Preoperative diagnostic protocol to predict candidates for unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop (273):146–150Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mallory TH, Danyi J (1983) Unicompartmental total knee arthroplasty. A five- to nine-year follow-up study of 42 procedures. Clin Orthop (175):135–138Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Scott RD, Santore RF (1981) Unicondylar unicompartmental replacement for osteoarthritis of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg 63-A:536–544Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rajasekhar C, Das S, Smith A (2004) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. 2 to 12-year results in a community hospital. J Bone Joint Surg 86-B:983–985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vorlat P, Putzeys G, Cottenie D et al (2006) The Oxford unicompartmental knee prosthesis: an independent 10-year survival analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 14(1):40–45CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Barrett WP, Scott RD (1987) Revision of failed unicondylar unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 69-A:1328–1335Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mujtaba Nassiri
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • John F. Quinlan
    • 1
  • John M. O’Byrne
    • 1
  1. 1.Cappagh National Orthopaedic HospitalFinglas, DublinRepublic of Ireland
  2. 2.Rathfarnham, DublinRepublic of Ireland

Personalised recommendations