Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Partial or total replacement of a unicompartmental knee prosthesis by another unicompartmental knee prosthesis: a reasonable option? About 22 cases

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Twenty-two patients who received primary unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (21 medial and 1 lateral) were reoperated between 2001 and 2010 for partial or total replacement of their implant without using a TKA. Of the 21 patients (1 bilateral) reoperated for PE insert wear (11), PE fracture (3), infection (2), and loosening or malposition (6), 3 patients died and 2 were lost to follow up. The remaining 17 cases had their clinical scores significantly improved. Only one re-revision occurred and consisted of a simple change of PE insert at 9 years, on a very heavy and very active patient. It therefore seems possible and reasonable for now to continue partial or total replacement of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty by another unicompartmental knee arthroplasty without using a TKA.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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. Mac Auley JP, Engh GA, Ammeen DJ (2001) Revision of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 392:279–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Jackson M, Sarangi PP, Newmann JM (1994) Revision total knee arthroplasty. Comparison of outcome following primary proximal tibial osteotomy or unicompartmental arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 9:539–542

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Levine WN, Ozuna RM, Scott RD, Thornhill TS (1996) Conversion of failed modern unicompartmental arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 11:797–801

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rational of the knee society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop 248:13–14

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lewold S, Robertsson O, Knutson K, Lidgren L (1998) Revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Scand 69(5):469–474

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hang JR, Stanford TE, Graves SE, Davidson DC, De Steiger RN, Miller LN (2010) Outcome of revision of unicompartmental knee replacement. Acta Orthopedica 81(1):95–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lecuire F, Fayard JP, Simottel JC, Charmion L, Edorh G (2008) Mid-term results of a new cementless hydroxyapatite coated anatomic unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 18(4):279–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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 Am 84:2235–2239

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Felts E, Parratte S, Pauly V, Aubaniac JM, Argenson JN (2010) Qualité de vie et fonction après prothèse unicompartimentale médiale de genou chez les sujets de moins de 60 ans. Rev Chir Orthop et traumatol 96:953–960

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Price AJ, Phil D, Waite JC, Svard U (2005) Long-term clinical results of the medial Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 435:171–180

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Naudie D, Guerin J, Parker DA, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH (2004) Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with the Miller-Galante prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86:1931–1935

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gioe TJ, Killen KK, Hoeffel DP, Bert JM, Comfort TK, Scheltema K, Mehle S, Grim K (2003) Analysis of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in a community-based implant registry. Clin Orthop 416:111–119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

None of the authors receive funds in support of this study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Service de Chirurgie Orthopédique, Hôpital Renée Sabran, Boulevard E. Herriot, Giens, 83406, Hyeres, France

    F. Lecuire, A. Galland, M. Basso, H. Vinel & J. Rubini

Authors
  1. F. Lecuire
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Galland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Basso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. H. Vinel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. Rubini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. Lecuire.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lecuire, F., Galland, A., Basso, M. et al. Partial or total replacement of a unicompartmental knee prosthesis by another unicompartmental knee prosthesis: a reasonable option? About 22 cases. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 23, 933–938 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-012-1099-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-012-1099-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation