Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Minimum thickness of all-poly tibial component unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients younger than 60 years does not increase revision rate for aseptic loosening

  • Knee
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

Management of unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis in middle-aged patients is a challenging problem. Despite its functional advantages, UKA still raises questions concerning implant survivorship and an increased revision risk for aseptic loosening mainly due to polyethylene wear. The main purpose of the present study was to investigate whether using the minimum thickness of an all-poly tibial UKA in patients under 60 years of age increases the revision rate for aseptic loosening. The secondary purposes were to compare implant survivorship with data reported in literature and to prospectively evaluate the clinical outcome in this selected group of patients.

Methods

Thirty-three consecutive patients under 60 years of age at the time of surgery with isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis underwent a unilateral medial UKA from 2002 to 2005 and were prospectively followed. A Kaplan–Meier analysis was performed to determine the 8-year implant survivorship with revision for any reason as endpoint. KSS, WOMAC, Tegner–Lysholm, Tegner and VAS scores were prospectively evaluated at 3- to 8-year follow-up. Weight-bearing radiographs were collected pre-operatively and at 3- to 8-year follow-up to prospectively evaluate hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA), femoro-tibial angle (FTA), tibial plateau angle and posterior tibial slope.

Results

The 8-year Kaplan–Meier survivorship with revision for any reason as endpoint was 83 %. Five failures were reported, and in 3 patients’ aseptic loosening of the tibial component was the reason for failure. All clinical scores significantly improved at 3-year follow-up, and no further modification was demonstrated up to 8-year follow-up. HKA, FTA and TPA had a significant difference at 3-year follow-up with respect to pre-operative values (p < 0.01) and no further difference at 8-year follow-up was found.

Conclusions

The present study failed to demonstrate an increased revision rate for aseptic loosening of the implant in patients under 60 years of age, who received an all-poly tibial component UKA using the minimum thickness of the implant in all cases.

Level of evidence

Case series, Level IV.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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 

  2. Argenson JN, Parratte S, Flecher X, Aubaniac JM (2007) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: technique through a mini-incision. Clin Orthop Relat Res 464:32–36

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bhattacharya R, Scott CE, Morris HE, Wade F, Nutton RW (2011) Survivorship and patient satisfaction of a fixed bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty incorporating an all-polyethylene tibial component. Knee 19(4):348–351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Biswal S, Brighton RW (2009) Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cemented, fixed-bearing prosthesis using minimally invasive surgery. J Arthroplasty 25(5):721–727

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Briggs KK, Steadman JR, Hay CJ, Hines SL (2009) Lysholm score and Tegner activity level in individuals with normal knees. Am J Sports Med 37(5):898–901

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bruni D, Iacono F, Raspugli G, Zaffagnini S, Marcacci M (2012) Is unicompartmental arthroplasty an acceptable option for spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee? Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:1442–1451

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bruni D, Iacono F, Russo A, Zaffagnini S, Muccioli GMM, Bignozzi S, Bragonzoni L, Marcacci M (2009) Minimally invasive unicompartmental knee replacement: retrospective clinical and radiographic evaluation of 83 patients. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18(6):710–717

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cartier P, Khefacha A, Sanouiller JL, Frederick K (2007) Unicondylar knee arthroplasty in middle-aged patients: a minimum 5-year follow-up. Orthopedics 30(8 Suppl):62–65

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Choy WS, Kim KJ, Lee SK, Yang DS, Lee NK (2011) Mid-term results of oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Surg 3(3):178–183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Clement ND, Duckworth AD, MacKenzie SP, Nie YX, Tiemessen CH (2012) Medium-term results of Oxford phase-3 medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 20(2):157–161

    Google Scholar 

  11. Collier MB, Eickmann TH, Sukezaki F, McAuley JP, Engh GA (2006) Patient, implant, and alignment factors associated with revision of medial compartment unicondylar arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 21(6 suppl 2):108–115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Collier MB, Engh CA Jr, McAuley JP, Engh GA (2007) Factors associated with the loss of thickness of polyethylene tibial bearings after knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(6):1306–1314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A (1998) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80(1):63–69

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Egidy CC, Sherman SL, Macdessi SJ, Cross MB, Windsor RE (2012) Long-term survivorship of a unicondylar knee replacement—a case report. Knee 19(6):944–947

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Felts E, Parratte S, Pauly V, Aubaniac JM, Argenson JN (2010) Function and quality of life following medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients 60 years of age or younger. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 96(8):861–867

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Goodfellow J, O’Connor J, Dodd C (2006) Unicompartmental arthroplasty with the Oxford knee. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hanssen AD, Stuart MJ, Scott RD, Scuderi GR (2001) Surgical options for the middle-aged patient with osteoarthritis of the knee joint. Instr Course Lect 50:499–511

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hernigou P, Deschamps G (2004) Alignment influences wear in the knee after medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 423:161–165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Heyse TJ, Khefacha A, Peersman G, Cartier P (2012) Survivorship of UKA in the middle-aged. Knee 19(5):585–591

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hopgood P, Martin CP, Rae PJ (2004) The effect of tibial implant size on post-operative alignment following medial unicompartmental knee replacement. Knee 11:385–388

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:13–14

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kennedy WR, White RP (1987) Unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee: postoperative alignment and its influence on overall results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 221:278–285

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kort NP, van Raay JJ, van Horn JJ (2007) The Oxford phase III unicompartmental knee replacement in patients less than 60 years of age. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15(4):356–360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Koskinen E, Paavolainen P, Eskelinen A, Harilainen A, Sandelin J, Ylinen P, Tallroth K, Remes V (2008) Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with Miller-Galante II prosthesis: mid-term clinical and radiographic results. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 129(5):617–624

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kuipers BM, Kollen BJ, Bots PC, Burger BJ, van Raay JJ, Tulp NJ, Verheyen CC (2010) Factors associated with reduced early survival in the Oxford phase III medial unicompartment knee replacement. Knee 17(1):48–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Larsson SE, Larsson S, Lundkvist S (1988) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 232:174–181

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mariani EM, Bourne MH, Jackson RT, Jackson ST, Jones P (2007) Early failure of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 22(6 Suppl 2):81–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. McConnell S, Kolopack P, Davis AM (2001) The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC): a review of its utility and measurement properties. Arthritis Rheum 45(5):453–461

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Pandit H, Jenkins C, Barker K (2006) The Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement using a minimally-invasive approach. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88:54–60

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Parratte S, Argenson JN, Pearce O, Pauly V, Auquier P, Aubaniac JM (2009) Medial unicompartmental knee replacement in the under-50s. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91(3):351–356

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Price AJ, Dodd CA, Svard UG, Murray DW (2005) Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients younger and older than 60 years of age. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87(11):1488–1492

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Ridgeway SR, McAuley JP, Ammeen DJ, Engh GA (2002) The effect of alignment of the knee on the outcome of unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84(3):351–355

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Schai PA, Suh JT, Thornhill TS, Scott RD (1998) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in middle-aged patients: a 2- to 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty 13(4):365–372

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Stukenborg-Colsman C, Wirth CJ, Lazovic D, Wefer A (2001) High tibial osteotomy versus unicompartmental joint replacement in unicompartmental knee joint osteoarthritis: 7–10-year follow-up prospective randomised study. Knee 8(3):187–194

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Tabor OB Jr, Tabor OB, Bernard M, Wan JY (2005) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: long-term success in middle-age and obese patients. J Surg Orthop Adv 14(2):59–63

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. W-Dahl A, Robertsson O, Lidgren L (2010) Surgery for knee osteoarthritis in younger patients. Acta Orthop 81(2):161–164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Wasielewski RC, Galante JO, Leighty RM, Natarajan RN, Rosenberg AG (1994) Wear patterns on retrieved polyethylene tibial inserts and their relationship to technical considerations during total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 299:31–43

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Weston-Simons JS, Pandit H, Jenkins C, Jackson WF, Price AJ, Gill HS, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2012) Outcome of combined unicompartmental knee replacement and combined or sequential anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a study of 52 cases with mean follow-up of five years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94(9):1216–1220

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Whiteside LA (2005) Making your next unicompartmental knee arthroplasty last: three keys to success. J Arthroplasty 20(4 Suppl 2):2–3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Xing Z, Katz J, Jiranek W (2012) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: factors influencing the outcome. J Knee Surg 25(5):369–374

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Biomechanics and Technological Innovation Laboratory, Codivilla-Putti Research Center, Bologna University, Via Di Barbiano 1-10, 40136, Bologna, Italy

    Danilo Bruni, Ibrahim Akkawi, Francesco Iacono, Giovanni Francesco Raspugli, Michele Gagliardi, Marco Nitri, Alberto Grassi, Stefano Zaffagnini, Simone Bignozzi & Maurilio Marcacci

Authors
  1. Danilo Bruni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ibrahim Akkawi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francesco Iacono
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Giovanni Francesco Raspugli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michele Gagliardi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marco Nitri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Alberto Grassi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Stefano Zaffagnini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Simone Bignozzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Maurilio Marcacci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Danilo Bruni.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bruni, D., Akkawi, I., Iacono, F. et al. Minimum thickness of all-poly tibial component unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients younger than 60 years does not increase revision rate for aseptic loosening. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21, 2462–2467 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2578-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2578-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation