An Early Periprosthetic Fracture of a Cementless Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Risk Factors and Mitigation Strategies

Fractures in Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty are associated with a decreased medial keel-cortex distance of the tibial implant

PURPOSE

This retrospective single-center study aimed to investigate incidence and risk factors influencing tibial periprosthetic fractures (TPF) in Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), with a specific focus on tibial component positioning and sizing.

METHODS

A total of 2063 patients with medial UKA using the Oxford® mobile partial knee implant were analyzed between July 2014 and September 2022. Various preoperative and postoperative radiographic parameters determining pre- and postoperative alignment and implant positioning, incidence and characteristics of periprosthetic fractures, and patient demographics were assessed. Statistical analyses, including Mann-Whitney U test and logistic regression, were conducted to identify significant associations and predictors of tibial fractures.

RESULTS

Of the 1853 cases that were finally included in the study, 19 (1%) patients experienced TPF. The fracture group presented with a significantly shorter relative mediolateral and posteroanterior distance between the keel and cortex [mediolateral: 23.3% (23.2-24.8%) versus 27.1% (25.7-28.3%), p < 0.001; posteroanterior: 8.4% (6.3-10.3%) versus 10.0% (9.8-10.1%), p = 0.004]. Additionally, an increased posterior tibial slope in pre- and postoperative radiographs [preoperative: 10.4° (8.6-11.1°) versus 7.7° (5.4-10.0°), p < 0.001; postoperative 9.1° ± 3.1° versus 7.5° (5.9-9.0°), p = 0.030] was observed in the fracture group. Furthermore, the use of smaller-sized implants (AA) was associated with higher fracture rates (p < 0.001). Anatomical variants, such as a medial overhanging tibial plateau, were not observed.

CONCLUSIONS

In UKA, type Oxford TPF are linked to shorter mediolateral and posteroanterior keel-cortex distances, increased pre- and postoperative PTS, and small implant sizes (AA). Fracture lines often extend from the distal keel to the medial tibial cortex. These findings emphasize the importance of precise implant positioning and sizing to minimize fracture risk. Level of evidence Retrospective single-center study, III.

Advantages and limitations of mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: an overview of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Interest in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has recently grown. Mobile bearing UKA, in which the bearing is not fixed but rather perfectly conforms with femoral and tibial components and moves completely passively between the femoral and tibial implant, has now been used for approximately half a century.

AREAS COVERED

Alongside the recognized advantages of UKA, the mobile-bearing variant benefits from an extremely low rate of polyethylene wear and tolerable minor malalignment. Revision rates for UKA have been reported to exceed those of total knee arthroplasty, but long-term survival rates and outcomes from mobile-bearing UKA have been found to be satisfactory. In addition to the lateral osteoarthritis and loosening, which are main complications of UKA, bearing dislocation is a specific complication of mobile bearing UKA. Fractures and valgus subsidence are more prevalent than in the cementless UKA. While these continue to be features to be addressed, they have been partially solved.

EXPERT OPINION

Given the manifold benefits of UKA, its application could be extended to a larger patient population. Successful outcomes rely on careful patient selection and the surgeon's extensive familiarity with the procedure. Looking ahead, the incorporation of robotic surgery, already a feature of some fixed-bearing UKAs, might shape the future trajectory of mobile-bearing UKA.

Undersizing of the tibial component in Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) increases the risk of periprosthetic fractures

INTRODUCTION

Tibial periprosthetic fractures (TPF) after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) are a rare condition that affects about 1% of cases. Known risk factors include age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and bone density, as well as surgical technique and prosthesis design. The purpose of the study was to determine if undersizing of the tibial component in relation to the femoral component increases the risk of tibial periprosthetic fractures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Over a 6-year-period 1542 patients with cemented (n = 363) and uncemented (n = 1179) medial UKA were retrospectively evaluated. Tibial periprosthetic fractures were identified and classified, and epidemiologic data were documented at follow-up. Undersizing was defined as a smaller tibial component compared to the femoral implant. The association of potential risk factors for TPF with the incidence of TPF was investigated with binominal logistic regression.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients (0.9%) suffered from TPF at a median of 1 month after surgery. The mean follow-up period was 5.9 ± 1.7 years. Fractures were more common in cases with undersized tibial components [odds ratio (OR) 3.2, p < 0.05]. Furthermore, older age (OR 1.1, p < 0.05) and female sex (OR 6.5, p < 0.05) were identified as significant risk factors, while BMI (p = 0.8) and cemented implantation (p = 0.2) had no effect on fracture rate. Revision surgery included open reduction and internal fixation or conversion to total knee arthroplasty.

CONCLUSIONS

Undersizing of implant sizes in UKA increases the risk for TPF especially in patients with small tibial implants. Therefore, mismatched implants should be avoided for UKA particularly when risk factors like obesity, older age, or female gender are present. Tibial periprosthetic fractures were successfully treated by open reduction and internal fixation or conversion to total knee arthroplasty.

Hinge prostheses in the revision of unicompartmental knee replacement: a descriptive analysis of data from the national joint registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland

INTRODUCTION

Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is an effective surgical strategy in patients with isolated medial or lateral compartment osteoarthritis. Study aims were to (1) describe the epidemiology of patients undergoing revision of UKR to a hinge knee replacement (HKR); (2) identify factors influencing time to revision; (3) evaluate HKR survival.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An analysis of National Joint Registry data was undertaken, exploring revision of UKR to HKR between 2007 and April 2021. Descriptive analysis of eligible patients and Cox Regression to identify key determinants of time to revision were performed. Failure of HKR post-revision was assessed using survival analysis.

RESULTS

111 patients underwent revision of UKR to HKR. Median age at revision was 70 years and most common indications were instability (n = 42) and infection (n = 22). The most common implant was a rotating HKR. Significant independent factors associated with earlier revision were periprosthetic fracture (p = 0.03) and malalignment (p = 0.03). Progressive osteoarthritis (p = 0.01) and higher ASA grades (3: p = 0.01, 4: p < 0.01) delayed time to revision; patient sex and age were not significant factors. Ten patients required subsequent re-revision; median age at re-revision was 61 years. HKR revised from UKR had an 89.3% revision-free risk at 5 years. Male sex (p < 0.01) and younger age (p < 0.01) were associated with re-revision.

CONCLUSIONS

Factors associated with time to revision may be used to counsel patients prior to UKR. The survivorship of the HKR of 89.3% at 5 years is concerning and careful consideration should be given when using this level of constraint when revising UKR in younger or male patients.

Impact of keel saw blade design and thickness on the incidence of tibial plateau fracture and tibial implant-loosening in cementless medial UKR

BACKGROUND

Tibial plateau fractures and tibial implant- loosening are severe complications in cementless unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). The tibial keel preparation is particularly demanding and different saw blades can be used. It was hypothesized that different blade designs and thickness have an influence on the frequency of tibial plateau fractures and implant-loosening in cementless medial UKR.

METHODS

1258 patients with cementless medial UKR were included in this retrospective study between 2013 and 2020. The tibial keel cut was performed either with a double keel saw blade (DKS; 2.8 mm) and added hand guided pick or a mono reciprocating saw blade (RKB) of different thickness (2.5 mm; 2.65 mm; 2.75 mm). Tibial plateau fracture and loosening were demonstrated by standard two-plane radiographs. Tibial implant-loosening was defined as complete radiolucency and implant migration. Fracture and loosening were combined with pain and loss of function.

RESULTS

In 126 patients (10%) the tibial keel was prepared with DKS, in 407 patients (32.4%) with RKB 2.5 mm, in 330 patients (26.2%) with RKB 2.65 mm and in 395 patients (31.4%) with 2.75 mm. In 4 patients (3.17%) with DKS tibial plateau fracture occurred, in 4 patients (0.99%) with 2.5 mm RKB, in 3 patients (0.92%) with 2.65 mm RKB and in 1 patient (0.25%) with 2.75 mm RKB. Significantly fewer fractures occurred with a RKB design (p = 0.007). A negative correlation between fracture incidence and RKB saw blade thickness was found (Spearman-r = - 0.93). No difference for tibial implant-loosening was shown (p = 0.51).

CONCLUSION

Different blade designs and thickness have a significant influence on the incidence of tibial plateau fractures and aseptic tibial implant-loosening. The incidence of tibial plateau fractures in cementless medial UKR can be reduced by changing the design and thickness of the tibial keel saw blade. Greater thickness of RKB leads to significantly fewer tibial plateau fractures while the incidence of implant-loosening is not increasing.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was retrospectively registered and ethical approval was waived by the local ethical committee (No. 2020-1174).