Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is effective: ten year results

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) presents low morbidity and complication risk and provides excellent outcomes and fast recovery. Despite these facts, knee-replacement registries have shown high failure rates for UKA, especially when compared with traditional TKA. The purpose of this study was therefore to report outcomes, complications, and ten year survivorship rate of medial ZUK unicompartmental knee prosthesis.

Methods

We retrospectively analysed 136 medial UKAs in 124 patients, with a maximum follow-up of ten years. Patients were assessed through the International Knee Society (IKS) scores and range of motion (ROM). A complete X-ray study was performed in all patients. Limb alignment was assessed by measuring the femorotibial mechanical alignment. At surgery, bone resections were performed according to proximal tibial epiphyseal axis.

Results

Mean IKS knee score improved from 45.7 (range 35–63) points preoperatively to 87.2 (range 71–100) points at the latest follow-up. Mean IKS function score improved from 50.9 (range 40–70) points to 89.1 (range 75–100) points (p < 0.05). Mean ROM increased from 106.1° (range 98–123°) to 128.6° (range 116–139°) (p < 0.01). Four cases (2.9 %) were revised due to failure for any cause, so that survivorship was 97.1 % at the latest follow-up.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates excellent outcomes and survivorship for the ZUK unicompartmental knee prosthesis. Based on our findings, we believe that the ZUK prosthesis offers an effective and durable solution for treating medial degeneration of the knee.

Level of Evidence IV - Retrospective case series study

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Panni AS, Vasso M, Cerciello S, Felici A (2012) Unicompartmental knee replacement provides early clinical and functional improvement stabilizing over time. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:579–585

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Foran JR, Brown NM, Della Valle CJ, Berger RA, Galante JO (2013) Long-term survivorship and failure modes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:102–108

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Koshino T, Sato K, Umemoto Y, Akamatsu Y, Kumagai K, Saito T (2014) Clinical results of unicompartmental arthroplasty for knee osteoarthritis using a tibial component with screw fixation. Int Orthop. doi:10.1007/s00264-014-2564-y

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Schlueter-Brust K, Kugland K, Stein G, Henckel J, Christ H, Eysel P, Bontemps G (2014) Ten year survivorship after cemented and uncemented medial Uniglide® unicompartmental knee arthroplasties. Knee 21:964–970

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Yoshida K, Tada M, Yoshida H, Takei S, Fukuoka S, Nakamura H (2013) Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in Japan—clinical results in greater than one thousand cases over ten years. J Arthroplasty 28(9 Suppl):168–171

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Walker T, Gotterbarm T, Bruckner T, Merle C, Streit MR (2014) Total versus unicompartmental knee replacement for isolated lateral osteoarthritis: a matched-pairs study. Int Orthop 38:2259–2264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lim JW, Cousins GR, Clift BA, Ridley D, Johnston LR (2014) Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus age and gender matched total knee arthroplasty—functional outcome and survivorship analysis. J Arthroplasty 29:1779–1783

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Peersman G, Stuyts B, Vandenlangenbergh T, Cartier P, Fennema P (2014) Fixed- versus mobile-bearing UKA: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. doi:10.1007/s00167-014-3131-1

    Google Scholar 

  9. Jahnke A, Mende JK, Maier GS, Ahmed GA, Ishaque BA, Schmitt H, Rickert M, Clarius M, Seeger JB (2015) Sports activities before and after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using the new Heidelberg Sports Activity Score. Int Orthop 39:449–454

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lyons MC, MacDonald SJ, Somerville LE, Naudie DD, McCalden RW (2012) Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty database analysis: is there a winner? Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:84–90

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Niinimaki TT, Murray DW, Partanen J, Pajala A, Leppilahti JI (2011) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasties implanted for osteoarthritis with partial loss of joint space have high re-operation rates. Knee 18:432–435

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schmiegelow MD, Andersson C, Køber L, Andersen SS, Norgaard ML, Jensen TB, Gislason G, Berger SM, Torp-Pedersen C (2014) Associations between body mass index and development of metabolic disorders in fertile women-a nationwide cohort study. J Am Heart Assoc 3, e000672

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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 

  14. Vasso M, Del Regno C, D’Amelio A, Viggiano D, Corona K, Schiavone Panni A (2015) Minor varus alignment provides better results than neutral alignment in medial UKA. Knee 22:117–121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dao Trong ML, Diezi C, Goerres G, Helmy N (2014) Improved positioning of the tibial component in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with patient-specific cutting blocks. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. doi:10.1007/s00167-014-2839-2

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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 

  17. 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 

  18. Lustig S, Paillot J, Servien E, Henry J, Ait Si Selmi T, Neyret P (2009) Cemented all polyethylene tibial insert unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a long term follow-up study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 129:617–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Zambianchi F, Digennaro V, Giorgini A, Grandi G, Fiacchi F, Mugnai R, Catani F (2014) Surgeon’s experience influences UKA survivorship: a comparative study between all-poly and metal back designs. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. doi:10.1007/s00167-014-2958-9

    Google Scholar 

  20. Emerson RH Jr, Higgins LL (2008) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with the Oxford prosthesis in patients with medial compartment arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90:118–122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hall MJ, Conell DA, Morris HG (2013) Medium to long-term results of the UNIX uncemented unicompartmental knee replacement. Knee 20:328–331

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Koskinen E, Paavolainen P, Eskelinen A, Harilainen Ä, Sandelin J, Ylinen P, Tallroth K, Remes V (2009) Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with Miller-Galante II prosthesis: midterm clinical and radiographic results. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 129:617–624

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Berend KR, Morris MJ, Skeels MD, Lombardi AV Jr, Adams JB (2011) Perioperative complications of simultaneous versus staged unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:168–173

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Craik JD, El Shafie SA, Singh VK, Twyman RS (2014) Revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2014.10.038

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Epinette JA, Brunschweiler B, Mertl P, Mole D, Cazenave A, French Society for H, Knee (2012) 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 98(6 Suppl):S124–S130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine and Health Science, University of Molise, Via Francesco De Sanctis, 86100, Campobasso, Italy

    Michele Vasso, Chiara Del Regno, Carlo Perisano, Antonio D’Amelio, Katia Corona & Alfredo Schiavone Panni

Authors
  1. Michele Vasso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chiara Del Regno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carlo Perisano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Antonio D’Amelio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Katia Corona
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alfredo Schiavone Panni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michele Vasso.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vasso, M., Del Regno, C., Perisano, C. et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is effective: ten year results. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 39, 2341–2346 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2809-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2809-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation