Skip to main content
Log in

Registry Outcomes of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Revisions

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research

Abstract

Perceptions of the difficulty and outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revision (rev-UKA) vary. We analyzed differences in the complexity, cost, and survival of rev-UKAs compared with revision TKAs (rev-TKA). One hundred eighty knee arthroplasty revisions (68 rev-UKAs/112 rev-TKAs), defined as a minimum of tibial or femoral component revision, were identified from a community joint registry of 7587 knee implants performed between 1991 and 2005. Four of 68 rev-UKAs (5.9%) were revised a second time, whereas seven of 112 rev-TKAs (6.3%) were rerevised. Rev-TKA was predictably more complex than rev-UKA based on the proxies of operative time, use of modular augmentation and stems, and polyethylene liner thickness. Thirty-nine of 68 rev-UKAs (57%) had no form of augmentation and were revised as primary TKAs. There were more rev-TKAs than rev-UKAs with an implant cost greater than $5200 (42% versus 12%) and hospital charges greater than $33,000 (48% versus 25%). We found no difference in survival between the groups. Although rev-UKAs had less surgical complexity and bone loss at the time of revision compared with rev-TKAs, we were unable to show improved survival of rev-UKAs compared with rev-TKAs. Rev-UKAs were associated with lower implant costs and hospital charges compared with rev-TKAs.

Level of Evidence: Level II, prognostic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Argenson JN, Chevrol-Benkeddache Y, Aubaniac JM. Modern unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cement: a three to ten-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:2235–2239.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bae DK, Guhl JF, Keane SP. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for single compartment disease: clinical experience with an average four-year follow-up study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983;176:233–238.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Barrett WP, Scott RD. Revision of failed unicondylar unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;69:1328–1335.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bohm I, Landsiedl F. Revision surgery after failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study of 35 cases. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15:982–989.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Callahan CM, Drake BG, Heck DA, Dittus RS. Patient outcomes following unicompartmental or bicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty. 1995;10:141–150.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Chakrabarty G, Newman JH, Ackroyd CE. Revision of unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee: clinical and technical considerations. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13:191–196.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Chesnut WJ. Preoperative diagnostic protocol to predict candidates for unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991;273:146–150.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Deshmukh RV, Scott RD. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: long-term results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;392:272–278.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gioe TJ, Killeen KK, Hoeffel DP, Bert JM, Comfort TK, Scheltema K, Mehle S, Grimm K. Analysis of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in a community-based implant registry. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;416:111–119.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gioe TJ, Killeen KK, Mehle S, Grimm K. Implementation and application of a community total joint registry: a twelve-year history. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:1399–1404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Heck DA, Marmor L, Gibson A, Rougraff BT. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a multicenter investigation with long-term follow-up evaluation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;286:154–159.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Inglis GS. Unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee: a follow-up of 3 to 9 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1984;66:682–684.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Insall J, Walker P. Unicondylar knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976;120:83–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Johnson S, Jones P, Newman JH. The survivorship and results of total knee replacements converted from unicompartmental knee replacements. Knee. 2007;14:154–157.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Koskinen E, Paavolainen P, Eskelinen A, Pulkkinen P, Remes V. Unicondylar knee replacement for primary osteoarthritis: a prospective follow-up study of 1,819 patients from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop. 2007;78:128–135.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Levine WN, Ozuna RM, Scott RD, Thornhill TS. Conversion of failed modern unicompartmental arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1996;11:797–801.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Lewold S, Robertsson O, Knutson K, Lidgren L. Revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: outcome in 1,135 cases from the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty study. Acta Orthop Scand. 1998;69:469–474.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. McAuley JP, Engh GA, Ammeen DJ. Revision of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;392:279–282.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Naudie D, Guerin J, Parker DA, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH. Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with the Miller-Galante prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:1931–1935.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Padgett DE, Stern SH, Insall JN. Revision total knee arthroplasty for failed unicompartmental replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991;73:186–190.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Rajasekhar C, Das S, Smith A. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: 2- to 12-year results in a community hospital. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86:983–985.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Robertsson O, Borgquist L, Knutson K, Lewold S, Lidgren L. Use of unicompartmental instead of tricompartmental prostheses for unicompartmental arthrosis in the knee is a cost-effective alternative: 15,437 primary tricompartmental prostheses were compared with 10,624 primary medial or lateral unicompartmental prostheses. Acta Orthop Scand. 1999;70:170–175.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Saldanha KA, Keys GW, Svard UC, White SH, Rao C. Revision of Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: results of a multicentre study. Knee. 2007;14:275–279.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Springer BD, Scott RD, Thornhill TS. Conversion of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;446:214–220.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Squire MW, Callaghan JJ, Goetz DD, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC. Unicompartmental knee replacement: a minimum 15 year followup study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;367:61–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Svard UC, Price AJ. Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a survival analysis of an independent series. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83:191–194.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the many surgeons responsible for the success of the HealthEast Joint Registry.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Terence J. Gioe MD.

Additional information

Each author certifies that he or she has no commercial associations (eg, consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.

Each author certifies that his or her institution has approved the reporting of these cases, that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research, and that informed consent for participating in the study was obtained.

About this article

Cite this article

Dudley, T.E., Gioe, T.J., Sinner, P. et al. Registry Outcomes of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Revisions. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466, 1666–1670 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0279-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0279-3

Keywords

Navigation