Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Revision of Partial Knee Arthroplasty

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Partial Knee Arthroplasty

  • 826 Accesses

Abstract

When a revision is needed, some surgeons believe that partial knee arthroplasty can easily be revised to a total knee arthroplasty. In some cases, it can be a complex and technically demanding intervention. Preoperative planning precedes each revision and requires the critical examination of the case with the development of an operative strategy. Possible pitfalls can thus be detected preoperatively and avoided during the revision. This chapter outlines the most common reasons for revision and describes important steps for patient preparation. Another chapter provides detailed information of the surgical technique for a successful revision of partial knee arthroplasty. Finally, the current literature on the results of revision surgery is discussed.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literatures

  1. Pandit H, et al. The clinical outcome of minimally invasive phase 3 Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a 15-year follow-up of 1000 UKAs. Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B(11):1493–500.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Vasso M, et al. Minor varus alignment provides better results than neutral alignment in medial UKA. Knee. 2015;22(2):117–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Argenson JN, Parratte S. The unicompartmental knee: design and technical considerations in minimizing wear. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;452:137–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dyrhovden GS, et al. Have the causes of revision for total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasties changed during the past two decades? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475(7):1874–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Springer BD, Scott RD, Thornhill TS. Conversion of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;446:214–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kim KT, et al. Analysis and treatment of complications after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res. 2016;28(1):46–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Foran JR, et al. Long-term survivorship and failure modes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(1):102–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Baker PN, et al. Revision for unexplained pain following unicompartmental and total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(17):e126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kerens B, et al. Revision from unicompartmental to total knee replacement: the clinical outcome depends on reason for revision. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B(9):1204–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Park CN, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of the painful unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee. 2015;22(4):341–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Van Loon P, de Munnynck B, Bellemans J. Periprosthetic fracture of the tibial plateau after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Belg. 2006;72(3):369–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Labruyere C, et al. Chronic infection of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: one-stage conversion to total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2015;101(5):553–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Sarmah SS, et al. The radiological assessment of total and unicompartmental knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94(10):1321–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Tanavalee A, Choi YJ, Tria AJ Jr. Unicondylar knee arthroplasty: past and present. Orthopedics. 2005;28(12):1423–33. quiz 1434-5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Monk AP, Keys GW, Murray DW. Loosening of the femoral component after unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91(3):405–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Chau R, et al. Tibial component overhang following unicompartmental knee replacement--does it matter? Knee. 2009;16(5):310–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hu B, et al. Local infiltration analgesia versus regional blockade for postoperative analgesia in total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Pain Physician. 2016;19(4):205–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Smit KM, et al. One dose of tranexamic acid is safe and effective in revision knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2013;28(8 Suppl):112–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Samujh C, et al. Decreased blood transfusion following revision total knee arthroplasty using tranexamic acid. J Arthroplast. 2014;29(9 Suppl):182–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pfitzner T, et al. Influence of the tourniquet on tibial cement mantle thickness in primary total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;24:96–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fehring TK, et al. Early failures in unicondylar arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2010;33(1):11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Perkins TR, Gunckle W. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: 3- to 10-year results in a community hospital setting. J Arthroplast. 2002;17(3):293–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ji JH, et al. Complications of medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Surg. 2014;6(4):365–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kim KT, et al. Clinical results of lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: minimum 2-year follow-up. Clin Orthop Surg. 2016;8(4):386–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Marmor L. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Ten- to 13-year follow-up study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;226:14–20.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Pearse AJ, et al. Survival and functional outcome after revision of a unicompartmental to a total knee replacement: the New Zealand National Joint Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92(4):508–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Hang JR, et al. Outcome of revision of unicompartmental knee replacement. Acta Orthop. 2010;81(1):95–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Dudley TE, et al. Registry outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revisions. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(7):1666–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Khan Z, et al. Conversion of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: the challenges and need for augments. Acta Orthop Belg. 2013;79(6):699–705.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Maes M, Luyckx T, Bellemans J. Does a conservative tibial cut in conventional total knee arthroplasty violate the deep medial collateral ligament? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;22(11):2735–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Wyatt MC, et al. The alpha-defensin immunoassay and leukocyte esterase colorimetric strip test for the diagnosis of periprosthetic infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(12):992–1000.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Servien E, et al. Reliability of bony landmarks for restoration of the joint line in revision knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008;16(3):263–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ozkurt B, et al. The medial and lateral epicondyle as a reliable landmark for intra-operative joint line determination in revision knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint Res. 2016;5(7):280–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Kowalczewski JB, et al. Does joint line elevation after revision knee arthroplasty affect tibio-femoral kinematics, contact pressure or collateral ligament lengths? An in vitro analysis. Arch Med Sci. 2015;11(2):311–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Thiele K, et al. Current failure mechanisms after knee arthroplasty have changed: polyethylene wear is less common in revision surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(9):715–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Scuderi GR. Revision total knee arthroplasty: how much constraint is enough? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;392:300–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Johnson S, Jones P, Newman JH. The survivorship and results of total knee replacements converted from unicompartmental knee replacements. Knee. 2007;14(2):154–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Newman J, Pydisetty RV, Ackroyd C. Unicompartmental or total knee replacement: the 15-year results of a prospective randomised controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91(1):52–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Barrett WP, Scott RD. Revision of failed unicondylar unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;69(9):1328–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Chou DT, et al. Revision of failed unicompartmental knee replacement to total knee replacement. Knee. 2012;19(4):356–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Jarvenpaa J, et al. 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. 2010;34(5):649–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Becker R, John M, Neumann WH. Clinical outcomes in the revision of unicondylar arthroplasties to bicondylar arthroplasties. A matched-pair study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2004;124:702–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Padgett DE, Stern SH, Insall JN. Revision total knee arthroplasty for failed unicompartmental replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991;73(2):186–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Bloom KJ, et al. The effects of primary implant bearing design on the complexity of revision unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2014;29(1):106–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Koskinen E, et al. 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. 2008;79(4):499–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Northwell Health Orthopedic Institute, New York, NY, USA

    Giles R. Scuderi

  2. Center for Musculoskeletal Surgery, Department for Orthopedic Surgery, Charité-University Medicine Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Lisa Renner, Clemens Gwinner, Philipp von Roth & Carsten Perka

Authors
  1. Giles R. Scuderi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lisa Renner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Clemens Gwinner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Philipp von Roth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Carsten Perka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carsten Perka .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Locomotion, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France

    Jean-Noël A. Argenson

  2. University of Maryland St. Joseph Medical Center, Towson, MD, USA

    David F. Dalury

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Scuderi, G.R., Renner, L., Gwinner, C., von Roth, P., Perka, C. (2019). Revision of Partial Knee Arthroplasty. In: Argenson, JN., Dalury, D. (eds) Partial Knee Arthroplasty. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94250-6_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94250-6_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-94249-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-94250-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation