Skip to main content

What to Do If a Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Fails

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty
  • 52 Accesses

Abstract

The rate of revision surgery for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) varies depending on the publication, but survival increases with the expertise of the centres and practitioners. Unexplained pain can be an early manifestation of loosening, and dislocation of the polyethylene insert is specific to implants with a mobile insert. UKA failure due to allergy should be considered in a consultation, with an allergy screening questionnaire advisable. Measures to be taken on wear progression should include valgus position, conserved joint amplitude, and efficient ligament system. Patellofemoral arthroplasty should be considered in light of UKA deterioration and Iwano radiological stage 3 or 4. Revision surgery with TKR is the most common approach. Implant choice should consider present or potential loss of bone substance. Medial UKA implants should be kept as long as possible during revision surgery. Lewis et al. found that use of a stem increased survival at 10 years, and cemented implants are better than cementless implants. The operator should assess the difference between the section and the healthy area of bone under the medial tibial implant before selecting a revision technique. Perioperatively, tibial resection can be used as an autologous bone graft augment if bone quality is satisfactory, and the difference between the scheduled height of the lateral cut and the medial cut in the healthy area must be assessed. Preparation of the tibial baseplate is essential for successful UKA and sepsis management, which is based on clinical findings and a warm swollen knee. In cases of acute or chronic infection, imaging has little utility and antibiotic therapy should be targeted. Risk factors increase the probability of infection, and dislocation of the polyethylene implant should be considered based on sudden deterioration of the clinical result. UKA inserts can be dislocated due to perioperative technical issues, CAM effect, MCL insufficiency, asymmetry of joint spaces, malposition of an implant, or an insert increased by 1 mm. UKA is a surgical procedure with excellent functional results, but failures are increasing due to loosening of the tibial implant. Total arthroplasty is the most widely used solution, with implants sealed with a stem and augmenting whenever necessary.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
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

References

  1. Johal S, Nakano N, Baxter M, Hujazi I, Pandit H. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: the past, current controversies, and future perspectives. J Knee Surg. 2018;31(10):992–8. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-16255961.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hansen EN, Ong KL, Lau E, Kurtz S, Lonner JH. Unicondylar knee arthroplasty has fewer complications but higher revision rates than total knee arthroplasty in a study of large united states databases. J Arthroplast. 2019;34(8):1617–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.04.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Australian Joint Registry: AOANJRR. https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/documents/10180/677574/Table+KP8.png.

  4. Kennedy JA, Palan J, Mellon SJ, Esler C, Dodd CA, Pandit HG, Murray DW. Most unicompartmental knee replacement revisions could be avoided: a radiographic evaluation of revised Oxford knees in the National Joint Registry. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020;28:3926–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-05861-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Epinette JA, Brunschweiler B, Mertl P, Mole D, Cazenave A. French Society for Hip and Knee: unicompartmental knee arthroplasty modes of failure: wear is not the main reason for failure: a multicentre study of 418 failed knees. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012;98(6 Suppl):S124–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2012.07.002. Epub 2012 Aug 24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dahl W, Robertsson O, Lidgren L, Miller L, Davidson D, Graves S. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients aged less than 65. Acta Orthop. 2010;81(1):90–4. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453671003587150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Goodfellow J, Goodfellow J, O’Connor J, Pandit HG, Dodd C, Murray DW. Unicompartmental arthroplasty with the oxford knee. Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers Lim; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Mertl P, Cazenave A. https://www.sfhg.fr/accueil/fiches-d-information/allergies-et-prothèses/.

  9. Dietrich KA, Mazoochian F, Summer B, Reinert M, Ruzicka T, Thomas P. Intolerance reactions to knee arthroplasty in patients with nickel/cobalt allergy and disappearance of symptoms after revision surgery with titanium-based endoprostheses. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2009;7(5):410–3. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1610-0387.2008.06987.x. Epub 2009 Jan 15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Stejskal V, Hudecek R, Stejskal J, Sterzl I. Diagnosis and treatment of metal induced side effects. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2006;27(Suppl 1):7–16.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Servien E, Merini A, Lustig S, Neyret P. Lateral uni-compartmental knee replacement: current concepts and future directions. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21(11):2501–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2585-x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Romagnoli S, Marullo M, Massaro M, Rusteni E, D’Amario F. Corbella M : Bi-unicompartmental and combined uni plus patellofemoral replacement: indications and surgical technique. Joints. 2015;3(1):42–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Epinette JA, Leyder M, Saragaglia D, Pasquier G, Deschamps G, Société Française de la Hanche et du Genou. Is unicompartmental-to-unicompartmental revision knee arthroplasty a reliable option ? Case-control study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014;100(1):141–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2013.10.013.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Weißenberger M, Petersen N, Bölch S, et al. Revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using the in situ referencing technique. Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2020;32(4):273–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00064-020-00656-w.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lewis PL, Davidson DC, Graves SE, De Steiger RN, Donnelly W, Cuthbert A. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revision to TKA: are tibial stems and augments associated with improved survivorship? J Arthroplast. 2019;34(8):1617–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.04.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Scott CE, Powell-Bowns MF, MacDonald DJ, Simpson P, Wade F. Revision of unicompartmental to total knee arthroplasty: does the unicompartmental implant (metal-backed vs. all-polyethylene) impact the total knee arthroplasty? J Arthroplast. 2018;33(7):2203–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Crawford DA, Berend KR, Lombardi AV. Management of the failed medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2018;26(20):e426–33. https://doi.org/10.5435/jaaos-d-17-00107.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Marinier ES, Peltier A, Gaillard R, Cheze L, Servien E, Neyret P, Lustig S. Conséquence de la hauteur de la coupe osseuse tibiale sur la laxité du genou dans le plan frontal : étude biomécanique cadavérique. Revue de Chirurgie Orthopédique et Traumatologique. 2017;103(7):S27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcot.2017.09.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Leta TH, Lygre SH, Skredderstuen A, Hallan G, Gjertsen J-E, Rokne B, Furnes O. Outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty after aseptic revision to total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg. 2016;98(6):431–40. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.o.00499.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Society of Unicondylar Research and Continuing Education. Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2012;27(8):46–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2012.03.033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. de Santé HA. Recommandations de la Haute Autorité de Santé. Prothèse de hanche ou de genou: diagnostic et prise en charge de l’infection dans le mois suivant l’implantation : Méthode Recommandation pour la pratique clinique. 2014. https://www.has-sante.fr/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-03/rbp_argumentaire_prothese_infectees_vd_.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Chalmers B, Kapadia M, Chiu Y, Henry M, Miller A, Carli A. Treatment and outcome of periprosthetic joint infection in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2020;35(7):1917–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.02.036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bauer T, Piriou P, Lhotellier L, Leclerc P, Mamoudy P, Lortat-Jacob A. Résultats des changements de prothèse de genou pour infection multicentrique portant sur 107 cas d'infections sur prothèse totale de genou. Revue de Chirurgie Orthopédique et Traumatologique. 2006;92(7)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Bae JH, Kim JG, Lee SY, Lim HC, Yong I, MUKA Study Group. Epidemiology of bearing dislocations after mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: multicenter analysis of 67 bearing dislocations. J Arthroplast. 2020;35(1):265–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.08.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Seeger JB, Jaeger S, Röhner E, Dierkes H, Wassilew G, Clarius M. Treatment of periprosthetic tibial plateau fractures in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Plates versus cannulated screws. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013;133:253–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kerens B, Boonen B, Schotanus MG, Lacroix H, Emans PJ, Kort NP. Revision from unicompartmental to total knee replacement: the clinical outcome depends on reason for revision. Bone Joint J. 2013;95–B:1204e8.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gunepin, FX., Tristan, L., Henaff, G.L., Cantin, O., Gicquel, T. (2024). What to Do If a Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Fails. In: Clavé, A., Dubrana, F. (eds) Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48332-5_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48332-5_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-48331-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-48332-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics