Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Results and Registry Data for Unicompartmental Knee Replacements

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

  • 53 Accesses

Abstract

There is good evidence that Unicompartmental Knee Replacement (UKR) has numerous advantages over Total Knee Replacement (TKR). UKR provides a faster recovery with a shorter hospital stay, fewer complications, lower re-admission rate and lower mortality. In addition, it provides better functional outcomes with more excellent results. UKR is also easier to revise than TKR, is less costly, and more effective over the patient’s lifetime. The disadvantage of UKR is that it has a higher revision rate. One of the main reasons for this is that the threshold for revising a UKR is much lower than that for TKR because UKR are easier to revise, and the outcome of a revision is expected to be better. As a result, even though UKR have less poor outcomes than TKR, they have a higher revision rate. So, when deciding whether to do a UKR or TKR, surgeons should not just focus on the revision rate but instead should consider all factors important to patients. Registry data shows that most surgeons doing UKR do very small numbers, the most common being 1 or 2 per year. Surgeons doing small numbers have very high revision rates, and with increasing numbers the revision rate decreases. The only practical way surgeons can increase their UKR caseload is to increase the proportion of their primary knee replacements that are UKR, which is known as UKR usage. Surgeons with usage less than 20% tend to have a high revision rate so these surgeons should either stop doing UKR or do more. With mobile bearing UKR the revision rate decreases with increased usage up to 50%. The evidence-based indications for the mobile bearing UKR are satisfied in about 50% of patients needing knee replacement. Therefore, to achieve optimal results surgeons should adhere to the recommended indications. There are a few studies that report the 20-year results following UKR. The largest which included 683 knees, reported a 20-year survival of 91% (n=683) for a mobile bearing UKR. Three smaller studies of fixed bearing UKR reported 20-year survivals of 74% (n=160), 84% (n=103) and 90% (n=90). There are numerous reports of 10-year results from cohort and registry studies with a number of devices performing well. There are very few comparative studies at 10-years, but a matched registry-based study found that for mobile bearing UKR cementless fixation had a better ten year survival than cemented.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
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

Notes

  1. 1.

    In this meta-analysis, high caseload was defined as >12 UKR per year, and low caseload was defined as ≤12 UKR per year.

  2. 2.

    Low volume was defined as <10 cases/year, medium volume 10–29 cases/year, and high volume ≥ 30 cases/year.

References

  1. Kalairajah Y, et al. Health outcome measures in the evaluation of Total hip arthroplasties—a comparison between the Harris hip score and the Oxford hip score. J Arthroplast. 2005;20(8):1037–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Goodfellow JW, O'Connor JJ, Murray DW. A critique of revision rate as an outcome measure: re-interpretation of knee joint registry data. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92(12):1628–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. The New Zealand Joint Registry. Twenty Year Report: January 1999 to December 2018. 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  4. National Joint Registry. 16th Annual report 2019—National Joint Registry for England. Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man: Wales; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Liddle AD, et al. Adverse outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee replacement in 101,330 matched patients: a study of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet. 2014;384(9952):1437–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Liddle AD. Failure of unicompartmental knee replacement [DPhil]. Oxford: University of Oxford; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Liddle A, et al. Patient-reported outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study of 14,076 matched patients from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B(6):793–801.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Beard DJ, et al. The clinical and cost-effectiveness of total versus partial knee replacement in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis (TOPKAT): 5-year outcomes of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2019;394(10200):746–56.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Beard DJ, et al. Total versus partial knee replacement in patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis: the TOPKAT RCT. 2020;24:20.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Burn E, et al. Ten-year patient-reported outcomes following total and minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a propensity score-matched cohort analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26(5):1455–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Blevins JL, et al. Postoperative outcomes of total knee arthroplasty compared to unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a matched comparison. Knee. 2020;27(2):565–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wilson HA, et al. Patient relevant outcomes of unicompartmental versus total knee replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2019;364:l352.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Liddle AD, et al. Narrow indications predict poor outcomes in unicompartmental knee replacement, in International Society of Arthroplasty Registers (ISAR) annual meeting. UK: Stratford-upon-Avon; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Stern SH, Becker MW, Insall JN. Unicondylar knee arthroplasty: an evaluation of selection criteria. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;286:143–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hamilton TW, et al. The interaction of caseload and usage in determining outcomes of Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplast. 2017;32(10):3228–3237.e2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hamilton TW, et al. Evidence-based indications for Mobile-bearing Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in a consecutive cohort of thousand knees. J Arthroplast. 2017;32(6):1779–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Willis-Owen CA, et al. Unicondylar knee arthroplasty in the UK National Health Service: an analysis of candidacy, outcome and cost efficacy. 2009;16:473–8.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kennedy JA, et al. Most unicompartmental knee replacement revisions could be avoided: a radiographic evaluation of revised Oxford knees in the National Joint Registry. Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy: Knee Surgery; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hamilton T, et al. Radiological decision aid to determine suitability for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2016;98-B(10_Supple_B)):3–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Price AJ, Svard U. 30-year survival of the Oxford Mobile bearing Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Arthroscopy. 2017;33(10):e115–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Price AJ, Svard U. 20-year survival and 10-year clinical results of the Oxford medial UKA. In 73rd Annual Meeting of the AAOS. Chicago; 2006, p. Il.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Argenson JN, et al. Modern unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cement: a concise follow-up, at a mean of twenty years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(10):905–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ansari S, Newman JH, Ackroyd CE, St. Georg sledge for medial compartment knee replacement. 461 arthroplasties followed for 4 (1-17) years. Acta Orthop Scand. 1997;68(5):430–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Steele RG, et al. Survivorship of the St Georg sled medial unicompartmental knee replacement beyond ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88(9):1164–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gill JR, Nicolai P. Clinical results and 12-year survivorship of the Physica ZUK unicompartmental knee replacement. Knee. 2019;26(3):750–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Winnock de Grave P, et al. Outcomes of a fixed-bearing, medial, cemented Unicondylar knee arthroplasty design: survival analysis and functional score of 460 cases. J Arthroplast. 2018;33(9):2792–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Vasso M, et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is effective: ten year results. Int Orthop. 2015;39(12):2341–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Mohammad HR, et al. Long-term outcomes of over 8,000 medial Oxford phase 3 Unicompartmental knees-a systematic review. Acta Orthop. 2018;89(1):101–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kendrick BJL, et al. Cemented versus cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using radiostereometric analysis. Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B(2):185–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Pandit H, et al. Improved fixation in cementless unicompartmental knee replacement: five-year results of a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(15):1365–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Campi S, et al. Ten-year survival and seven-year functional results of cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement: a prospective consecutive series of our first 1000 cases. Knee. 2018;25(6):1231–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Mohammad HR, et al. Ten-year clinical and radiographic results of 1000 cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacements. Knee Surg Sports Traumatolo Arthrosc. 2020;28(5):1479–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mohammad HR, et al. Comparison of the 10-year outcomes of cemented and cementless unicompartmental knee replacements: data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. Acta Orthop. 2019:1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Mohammad HR, et al. The effect of surgeon caseload on the relative revision rate of cemented and Cementless Unicompartmental knee replacements: an analysis from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020;102(8):644–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Rahman A, et al. Pain and function following Cementless and cemented Unicompartmental knee replacement: a 5 year comparison. In: Virtual EFORT congress. Vienna, Austria; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  38. White SH, Roberts S, Jones PW. The twin peg Oxford partial knee replacement: the first 100 cases. Knee. 2012;19(1):36–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Mohammad HR, et al. A matched comparison of revision rates of cemented Oxford unicompartmental knee replacements with single and dual peg femoral components, based on data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. Acta Orthop. 2020;91

    Google Scholar 

  40. Berend K, et al. New instrumentation reduces operative time in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using the Oxford Mobile bearing design. Reconstruct Rev. 2015;5(4)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Tu Y, et al. Superior femoral component alignment can be achieved with Oxford microplasty instrumentation after minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25(3):729–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Gaba S, et al. Early results of Oxford Mobile bearing medial Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) with the Microplasty instrumentation: an Indian experience. Arch Bone Joint Surg. 2018;6(4):301–11.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Mohammad HR, et al. New surgical instrumentation reduces the revision rate of unicompartmental knee replacement: a propensity score matched comparison of 15,906 knees from the National Joint Registry. Knee. 2020;27(3):993–1002. In Press

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Svard UC, Price AJ. Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. A survival analysis of an independent series. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83(2):191–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Emerson RH Jr, Higgins LL. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with the oxford prosthesis in patients with medial compartment arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(1):118–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Dawson J, et al. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80:63–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Rajasekhar C, Das S, Smith A. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. 2- to 12-year results in a community hospital. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86(7):983–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Kumar A, Fiddian NJ. Medial unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee. Knee. 1999;6:21–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Price AJ, et al. Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients younger and older than 60 years of age. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87(11):1488–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Vorlat P, Verdonk R, Schauvlieghe H. The Oxford unicompartmental knee prosthesis: a 5-year follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2000;8(3):154–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Koskinen E, et al. Unicondylar knee replacement for primary osteoarthritis: a prospective follow-up study of 1,819 patients from the Finnish arthroplasty register. Acta Orthop. 2007;78(1):128–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Robertsson O, et al. Knee arthroplasty in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. A pilot study from the Nordic arthroplasty register association. Acta Orthop. 2010;81(1):82–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Price AJ, Svard U. A second decade lifetable survival analysis of the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(1):174–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Heyse TJ, et al. Survivorship of UKA in the middle-aged. Knee. 2012;19(5):585–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. O'Rourke MR, et al. The John Insall award: unicompartmental knee replacement: a minimum twenty-one-year followup, end-result study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;440:27–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Squire MW, et al. Unicompartmental knee replacement. A minimum 15 year followup study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;367:61–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Tabor OB Jr, Tabor OB. Unicompartmental arthroplasty: a long-term follow-up study. J Arthroplast. 1998;13(4):373–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Cartier P, Sanouiller JL, Grelsamer RP. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty surgery. 10-year minimum follow-up period. J Arthroplast. 1996;11(7):782–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Heck DA, et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. A multicenter investigation with long-term follow-up evaluation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;286:154–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Rachha R, Veravalli K, Sood M. Medium term results of the miller-Galante knee arthroplasty with 10 year survivorship. Acta Orthop Belg. 2013;79(2):197–204.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. John J, Mauffrey C, May P. Unicompartmental knee replacements with miller-Galante prosthesis: two to 16-year follow-up of a single surgeon series. Int Orthop. 2011;35(4):507–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Naudie D, et al. Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with the miller-Galante prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A(9):1931–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Hall MJ, Connell DA, Morris HG. Medium to long-term results of the UNIX uncemented unicompartmental knee replacement. Knee. 2013;20(5):328–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Wagner-Kristensen P. Follow up on 800 patients having a medial Oxford prosthesis at Vejle hospital, Denmark. Oxford: Oxford Global Masters Symposium; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Jones L, et al. 10 year survivorship of the medial Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. A 1000 patient non-designer series - the effect of surgical grade and supervision. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2012;20:S90–1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Lim HC, et al. Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee replacement in Korean patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94(8):1071–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Davidson JA, et al. A district general hospital experience of Oxford partial knee replacement in the young patient. Oxford: Oxford Global Masters Symposium; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Nagy M, Keys GW. Long-term outcome of unicompartmental knee replacement in a district general hospital (paper 234). Chicago: AAOS; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Briant-Evans T, et al. The Oxford phase 3 medial unicompartmental knee replacement. 10 year results from an independent Centre: survival, function and risk factors for revision. In: British Association for Surgery of the Knee (BASK) Annual Meeting. Derby, UK; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Faour-Martin O, et al. Oxford phase 3 unicondylar knee arthroplasty through a minimally invasive approach: long-term results. Int Orthop. 2013;37(5):833–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Yoshida K, et al. Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in Japan—clinical results in greater than one thousand cases over ten years. J Arthroplast. 2013;28(9 Suppl):168–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Kristensen PW, Holm HA, Varnum C. Up to 10-year follow-up of the Oxford medial partial knee arthroplasty—695 cases from a single institution. J Arthroplast. 2013;28(9 Suppl):195–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Kim KT, et al. The survivorship and clinical results of minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at 10-year follow-up. Clin Orthop Surg. 2015;7(2):199–206.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Emerson RH, et al. The results of Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the United States: a mean ten-year survival analysis. Bone Joint J. 2016;98-B(10 Supple B):34–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Lisowski LA, et al. Ten- to 15-year results of the Oxford phase III mobile unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective study from a non-designer group. Bone Joint J. 2016;98 B(10 Supple B):41–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Bottomley N, et al. A survival analysis of 1084 knees of the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a comparison between consultant and trainee surgeons. Bone Joint J. 2016;98-B(10 Supple B):22–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Mohammad HR, et al. Ten-year clinical and radiographic results of 1000 cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacements. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020;28(5):1479–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oxford Orthopaedic Engineering Centre, NDORMS, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    A. Rahman & D. W. Murray

  2. Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford, UK

    A. Rahman & D. W. Murray

  3. MSk Lab, Imperial College London, London, UK

    A. D. Liddle

  4. Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK

    A. D. Liddle

Authors
  1. A. Rahman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. D. Liddle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. W. Murray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Rahman .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Service de Chirurgie Orthopédique, Clinique Saint George, Nice, France

    Arnaud Clavé

  2. Service de Chirurgie Orthopédique, CHU Cavale Blanche, Brest, France

    Frédéric Dubrana

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

Rahman, A., Liddle, A.D., Murray, D.W. (2024). Results and Registry Data for Unicompartmental Knee Replacements. In: Clavé, A., Dubrana, F. (eds) Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48332-5_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48332-5_17

  • 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

Search

Navigation