Abstract
BACKGROUND
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) accounts for 9.1% of primary knee arthroplasties (KAs) in the UK. However, wider uptake is limited by higher revision rates compared with total knee arthroplasties (TKA) and concerns over subsequent poor function. The aim of this study was to understand the revision strategies and clinical outcomes for aseptic, failed UKAs at a high-volume centre.
METHODS
This was a retrospective, single-centre cohort study of 48 patients (31 female, 17 male) with 52 revision UKAs from 2006 to 2018. Median time to revision was 67 (range 4-180) months. Indications for revision were progression of osteoarthritis (n = 31 knees, 59.6%), unexplained pain (n = 10 knees, 19.2%), aseptic loosening (n = 6 knees, 11.5%), medial collateral ligament incompetence (n = 3 knees, 5.8%) and recurrent bearing dislocation (n = 2 knees, 3.8%). Technical details of surgery, complications and functional outcome were recorded.
RESULTS
Failed UKAs were revised to primary TKAs (n = 29 knees, 55.8%), revision TKAs (n = 9 knees, 17.3%), bicompartmental KAs (n = 11 knees, 21.2%), or unicompartmental-to-unicompartmental KAs (n = 3 knees, 5.8%). Median follow up was 81 (range 24-164) months. Four patients (7.7%) died from unrelated causes. No re-revisions were identified. Surgical complications required re-operation in five knees (9.6%). Median Oxford Knee Score at latest follow up was 38 (range 9-48) points and median EQ5D3L index 0.707 (range -0.247 to 1.000).
CONCLUSIONS
Aseptic, revision UKA at a high-volume centre had good clinical outcomes. Bicompartmental KA demonstrated excellent function and should be considered an alternative to TKA for progression of osteoarthritis for appropriately trained surgeons.
Collapse