Revision of Minimal Resection Resurfacing Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty to Total Knee Arthroplasty: Results Compared With Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty
Section snippets
Materials and Methods
We retrospectively reviewed the records of 55 patients (group A), all consecutive, who underwent TKA for a failed UKA from 2003 to 2008. All patients were identified via the senior author's (M.J.N.) database, and information recorded included the usual demographic data and data from the primary procedure, including whether the degenerative changes were confined to the compartment that was replaced, the initial postoperative hip-knee-ankle (HKA) alignment of the limb, and the position of the
Results
The average time the UKA was in place before revision was 48.3 months (range, 5-112 months). The average follow-up period in group A was 39.2 months (range, 6-127 months), and in group B, it was 38.4 months (range, 24-65 months).
Table 1 demonstrates the reason for failure of the UKA. The most common reason for revision was subsidence of the tibial base plate (Fig. 2), accounting for 58% of all revisions. The average time to revision for this complication was 40 months (range, 6-99 months). When
Discussion
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is becoming an increasingly performed procedure for unicompartmental osteoarthritis in younger patients. This can be partly explained by the advent of minimally invasive techniques and better implant design.
However, there remains concern as to the longevity of the implants, especially in younger more active patients. In addition, the use of bone graft, augments, and stems may be required when converting a UKA to TKA.
The use of minimal resection techniques for
References (28)
Orthopaedic crossfire—can we justify unicondylar arthroplasty as a temporizing procedure? In the affirmative
J Arthroplasty
(2002)- et al.
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: functional recovery and radiographic results with a minimally invasive technique
J Arthroplasty
(2007) - et al.
Yearly incidence of unicompartmental knee replacement in the United States
J Arthroplasty
(2008) - et al.
Medial unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee
Knee
(1999) - et al.
The survivorship and results of total knee replacements converted from unicompartmental knee replacements
Knee
(2007) - et al.
Revision of Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty—results of a multicentre
Knee
(2007) - et al.
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) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: 10 to 13 year follow up study
Clin Orthop
(1988)- et al.
Unicompartmental or total knee replacement: the 15-year results of a prospective randomized controlled trial
J Bone Joint Surg [Br]
(2009) US markets for reconstructive devices 2001
(2002)
A 5- to 7-year follow-up of unicondylar arthroplasty
J Bone Joint Surg [Am]
Unicompartmental tibiofemoral resurfacing arthroplasty
J Bone Joint Surg [Am]
Clinical outcomes in the revision of unicondylar arthroplasties to bicondylar arthroplasties. A matched-pair study
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty conversion: assuring a primary outcome
Orthopedics
Cited by (0)
The Conflict of Interest statement associated with this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2012.02.031.