Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A well performing medial fixed bearing UKA with promising survivorship at 15 years

  • Knee Arthroplasty
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) accounts for 10% of knee arthroplasty procedures in Europe. Fixed bearing UKA designs have shown favorable survivorship in registries when compared with mobile bearings. This study analyses long-term follow-up of patients with a medial fixed bearing metal backed tibial UKA and reports 15 years survivorship and clinical outcomes.

Methods

Data were collected prospectively for 148 medial unicompartmental fixed bearing metal backed UKAs implanted in 148 patients in two high volumes knee arthroplasty centers between January 2005 and December 2007. The indication was osteoarthritis in all but 2 patients. Patients’ reported outcome scores were documented at last follow up. The mean patient age at time of surgery was 65 years.

Results

At final follow up, outcome and survivorship data were collected for 124 medial fixed bearing UKAs. Thirteen patients underwent revision; average time to revision was 77 months (SD 35.31). The Kaplan–Meier analysis demonstrated a survivorship of 97.65% at 69 months and of 89,52%. at 120 months and 173 months of follow-up. When revisions for infection were excluded, the survivorship of the implant was 90.3% at the last of follow up. The mean OKS was 43.02 (SD 5.1) at the last follow-up, and the mean FJS was 77.6 (SD 6.9).

Conclusion

This Medial fixed bearing metal backed UKA demonstrates promising long-term survivorship and patient outcomes. It appears to be a suitable and reasonably lasting option for the treatment of medial compartment OA.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Scott CEH, Turnbull GS, MacDonald D, Breusch SJ (2017) Activity levels and return to work following total knee arthroplasty in patients under 65 years of age. Bone Jt J 99B:1037–1046. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.99B8.BJJ-2016-1364.R1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Gunaratne R, Pratt DN, Banda J et al (2017) Patient dissatisfaction following total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature. J Arthroplasty 32:3854–3860

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Parvizi J, Nunley RM, Berend KR et al (2014) High level of residual symptoms in young patients after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:133–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11999-013-3229-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Canovas F, Dagneaux L (2018) Quality of life after total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 104:S41–S46

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Koskinen E, Eskelinen A, Paavolainen P et al (2008) 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 79:499–507. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453670710015490

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Henkel C, Mikkelsen M, Pedersen AB et al (2019) Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: increasingly uniform patient demographics despite differences in surgical volume and usage—a descriptive study of 8501 cases from the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Registry. Acta Orthop 90:354–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2019.1601834

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Griffin T, Rowden N, Morgan D et al (2007) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for the treatment of unicompartmental osteoarthritis: a systematic study. ANZ J Surg 77:214–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1445-2197.2007.04021.X

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kleeblad LJ, van der List JP, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD (2018) Larger range of motion and increased return to activity, but higher revision rates following unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in patients under 65: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26:1811–1822. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00167-017-4817-Y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wilson HA, Middleton R, Abram SGF et al (2019) Patient relevant outcomes of unicompartmental versus total knee replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 364 (Online)

  11. Dalury DF (2009) Reply. Orthopedics 32:470. https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20090527-02

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Winnock de Grave P, Barbier J, Luyckx T et al (2018) Outcomes of a fixed-bearing, medial, cemented unicondylar knee arthroplasty design: survival analysis and functional score of 460 cases. J Arthroplasty 33:2792–2799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.04.031

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wiik AV, Manning V, Strachan RK et al (2013) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty enables near normal gait at higher speeds, unlike total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 28:176–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ARTH.2013.07.036

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Hamilton TW, Pandit HG, Jenkins C et al (2017) Evidence-based indications for mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in a consecutive cohort of thousand knees. J Arthroplasty 32:1779–1785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.12.036

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bonano JC, Barrett AA, Amanatullah DF (2021) Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with a mobile-bearing implant. JBJS Essent Surg Techn. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.ST.20.00002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Neufeld ME, Albers A, Greidanus NV et al (2018) A Comparison of mobile and fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum 10-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 33:1713–1718. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ARTH.2018.01.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhang W, Wang J, Li H et al (2020) Fixed-versus mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Sci Rep 10(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-76124-z

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Di Martino A, Bordini B, Barile F et al (2020) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty has higher revisions than total knee arthroplasty at long term follow-up: a registry study on 6453 prostheses. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2020:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00167-020-06184-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Niinimäki T, Eskelinen A, Mäkelä K et al (2014) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty survivorship is lower than TKA survivorship: a 27-year Finnish registry study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:1496–1501. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11999-013-3347-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Whitehouse SL, Blom AW, Taylor AH et al (2005) The Oxford Knee Score; problems and pitfalls. Knee 12:287–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.KNEE.2004.11.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kacmaz IE, Gezer MC, Basa CD et al (2021) Use of the forgotten joint score (FJS)-12 to evaluate knee awareness after isolated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with and without meniscus repair or partial meniscectomy. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00590-021-02991-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Khow YZ, Liow MHL, Lee M et al (2021) Coronal alignment of fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty femoral component may affect long-term clinical outcomes. J Arthroplasty 36:478–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.07.070

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cartier P, Cheaib S (1987) Unicondylar knee arthroplasty: 2–10 years of follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty 2:157–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-5403(87)80023-2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Fabre-Aubrespy M, Ollivier M, Pesenti S et al (2016) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients older than 75 results in better clinical outcomes and similar survivorship compared to total knee arthroplasty. A matched controlled study. J Arthroplasty 31:2668–2671. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ARTH.2016.06.034

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Vasso M, Del Regno C, Perisano C et al (2015) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is effective: ten year results. Int Orthop 39:2341–2346. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00264-015-2809-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lee M, Cheng D, Chen J et al (2021) No difference in functional outcomes, quality of life and survivorship between metal-backed and all-polyethylene tibial components in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a 10-year follow-up study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 29:3368–3374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-06247-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bruce DJ, Hassaballa M, Robinson JR et al (2020) Minimum 10-year outcomes of a fixed bearing all-polyethylene unicompartmental knee arthroplasty used to treat medial osteoarthritis. Knee 27:1018–1027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2020.02.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Redish MH, Fennema P (2018) Good results with minimally invasive unicompartmental knee resurfacing after 10-year follow-up. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 28:959–965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-017-2079-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Parratte S, Ollivier M, Lunebourg A et al (2015) Long-term results of compartmental arthroplasties of the knee: long term results of partial knee arthroplasty. Bone Jt J 97B:9–15. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B10.36426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lyons MC, MacDonald SJ, Somerville LE et al (2012) Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty database analysis: is there a winner? Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:84–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11999-011-2144-Z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Wilson HA, Middleton R, Abram SGF et al (2019) Patient relevant outcomes of unicompartmental versus total knee replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJ.L352

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Brown NM, Sheth NP, Davis K et al (2012) Total knee arthroplasty has higher postoperative morbidity than unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a multicenter analysis. J Arthroplasty 27:86–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ARTH.2012.03.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Whittaker JP, Naudie DDR, McAuley JP et al (2010) Does bearing design influence midterm survivorship of unicompartmental arthroplasty? Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. Springer, New York, pp 73–81

    Google Scholar 

  34. van der List JP, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD (2016) Why do medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties fail today? J Arthroplasty 31:1016–1021. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ARTH.2015.11.030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Tay ML, McGlashan SR, Monk AP, Young SW (2021) Revision indications for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00402-021-03827-X

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received for the present study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sezione di Chirurgia Protesica ad Indirizzo Robotico, Unità di Traumatologia dello Sport, U.O.C Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Fondazione Poliambulanza, Via Bissolati 57, 25124, Brescia, Italy

    Stefano Marco Paolo Rossi, Rudy Sangaletti & Francesco Benazzo

  2. IUSS Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori, Pavia, Italy

    Francesco Benazzo

  3. U.O.C Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Fondazione Poliambulanza, Via Bissolati 57, Brescia, Italy

    Fabio Nesta, Luca Matascioli & Flavio Terragnoli

Authors
  1. Stefano Marco Paolo Rossi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rudy Sangaletti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fabio Nesta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Luca Matascioli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Flavio Terragnoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Francesco Benazzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefano Marco Paolo Rossi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All other authors declare no conflict of interest related to the present study.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the Ethical Committee of our institution (IRB Approval No. 2015001968).

Informed consent

All patients signed an informed consent for the surgical procedure and for publication of the data.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rossi, S.M.P., Sangaletti, R., Nesta, F. et al. A well performing medial fixed bearing UKA with promising survivorship at 15 years. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 143, 2693–2699 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-022-04562-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-022-04562-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation