Search

Purpose: Cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement (OUKR) is associated with less pain than cemented OUKR 5 years postoperatively. This may be due to improved fixation at the tibial wall, which transmits tension and reduces stress in the bone below the tibial component. This study compares tibial wall fixation with three different types of fixation: cemented, cementless with hydroxyapatite (HA) and cementless with a microporous titanium coat and HA (HA + MPC)., Methods: Three consecutive cohorts were identified (n = 221 cemented in 2005-2007, n = 118 HA in 2014-2015, n = 125 HA + MPC in 2016-2017). Analysis was performed on anterior-posterior radiographs aligned on the tibial component taken 1-2 years postoperatively. Aligned radiographs are needed to see narrow radiolucencies adjacent to the wall. Alignment was assessed with rotation ratio (RR = wall width/internal wall height). Perfect RR is 0.3, and a maximum threshold of 0.5 was used. Quality of fixation to the wall was assessed with fixation ratio (FR = bone wall contact height/total wall height). Notable radiographic features at the tibial wall were also recorded., Results: A total of 33 knees with cement, 37 knees with cementless with HA and 57 knees cementless with HA + MPC had adequately aligned radiographs. Fixation was significantly better with HA compared with cement (55% vs. 25%, p = 0.0016). The microporous coat further improved fixation (81% vs. 55%, p < 0.0001). FR > 80% was achieved in 3% of the cemented implants, 32% of HA and 68% of HA + MPC. In cementless cohorts, features suggestive of a layer of bone that had delaminated from the wall were seen in 8 (22%) HA and 3 (5%) HA + MPC knees., Conclusion: Radiographic tibial wall fixation in OUKR is poor with cement. It improves with an HA coating and improves further with an intermediary MPC. Improved tibial wall fixation may explain the lower levels of pain observed with cementless rather than cemented fixation described in the literature, but further clinical correlation is needed., Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study., (© 2024 The Authors. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy.)

Purpose: To compare patient-reported pain scores and assess the influence of neuropathy and co-morbidity, on knee pain following cemented and cementless medial unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) 5 years after surgery., Method: In this longitudinal study, 262 cemented and 262 cementless Oxford UKR performed for the same indications and with the same techniques were recruited. Patients were reviewed at five years, evaluating patient-reported pain and association with clinical outcomes. Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain (ICOAP), PainDETECT (PD), Charnley score, Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and American Knee Society Score (AKSS) were compared., Results: In both cohorts, intermittent pain was more common than constant pain (47% vs 21%). Cementless knees reported significantly less pain than cemented (ICOAP-Total 5/100 vs 11/100, p < 0.0001). A greater proportion of cementless knees experienced no pain at all (ICOAP = 0/100, 61% vs 43%, p < 0.0001) and 75% fewer experienced severe or extreme pain. Pain sub-scores in PD, OKS and AKSS follow this trend. Pain was unlikely to be neuropathic (PD positive: 5.26%), but patients reporting high levels of 'strongest' pain were three times more likely to be neuropathic. Patients with co-morbidities (Charnley C) experienced greater pain than those without (Charnley A+B) across all knee-specific scores, despite scores being knee specific., Conclusion: Both cemented and cementless UKR in this study had substantially less pain than that reported in literature following TKR. Cementless UKR had significantly less pain than cemented UKR in all scores. Two-thirds of patients with a cementless UKR had no pain at all at 5 years, and pain experienced was most likely to be mild and intermittent with no patients in severe or extreme pain. Patients with cementless UKR that had higher levels of pain were more likely to have co-morbidity or evidence or neuropathic pain. It is unclear why cementless UKR have less pain than cemented; further study is necessary., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Given an increasingly overweight population, unicompartmental knee replacements (UKRs) are being performed in patients with higher body mass indices (BMIs). There are concerns that cemented fixation will not last. Cementless fixation may offer a solution, but the long term results in different BMI groups has not been assessed. We studied the effect of BMI on the outcomes of cementless UKRs., Methods: A prospective cohort of 1000 medial cementless mobile-bearing UKR with a mean follow up of 6.6 years (SD 2.7) were analysed. UKRs were categorised into four BMI groups: (1) ≥ 18.5 to < 25 kg/m 2 (normal), (2) 25 to < 30 kg/m 2 (overweight), (3) 30 to < 35 kg/m 2 (obese class 1) and (4) ≥ 35 kg/m 2 (obese class 2). Implant survival was assessed using endpoints reoperation and revision. Functional outcomes were assessed., Results: Ten-year cumulative revision rate for the normal (n = 186), overweight (n = 434), obese class 1 (n = 213) and obese class 2 (n = 127) groups were 1.8% (CI 0.4-7.4), 2.6% (CI 1.3-5.1), 3.8% (CI 1.5-9.2) and 1.7% (CI 0.4-6.8) with no significant differences between groups (p = 0.79). The 10-year cumulative reoperation rates were 2.7% (CI 0.8-8.2), 3.8% (CI 2.2-6.6), 5.2% (CI 2.5-10.7) and 1.7% (CI 0.4-6.8) with no significant differences between groups (p = 0.44). The 10-year median Oxford Knee Score were 43.0, 46.0, 44.0 and 38.0 respectively., Conclusion: Cementless mobile-bearing UKR has low 10-year reoperation and revision rates across in all BMI groups, and there are no significant differences between the groups. Although higher BMI groups had slightly worse functional outcomes, the improvement in function compared to preoperatively  tended to be better. This study suggests that BMI should not be considered a contraindication for the cementless mobile-bearing UKR., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Unicompartmental Knee Replacements (UKR) are being performed in patients with increasing demands and life expectancies with surgical concerns that cemented fixation will not last. Cementless fixation may offer a solution, but the results in different age groups have not been assessed. The effect of age at surgery on the outcomes of cementless UKRs was investigated., Methods: A prospective cohort of 1000 medial cementless mobile bearing UKR were analysed. Patients were categorised into four age groups (< 55, 55 to < 65, 65 to < 75 and ≥ 75 years). Implant survival was assessed using endpoints reoperation, revision and major revision requiring revision knee replacement components. Functional outcomes were assessed., Results: 10 year cumulative revision rate for the < 55, 55 to < 65, 65 to < 75 and ≥ 75 groups were 2.1% (CI 0.6-6.1), 1.8% (CI 0.6-5.3), 3.2% (CI 1.5-6.5) and 4.1% (1.7-9.6) with no differences between groups (p = 0.52). Two of the 22 revisions were considered major. The 10 year cumulative reoperation rates were 4.5% (CI 2.0-10.0), 3.0% (CI 1.3-6.5), 3.8% (CI 2.0-7.1) and 4.1% (CI 1.7-9.6) with no differences between groups (p = 0.81). The 10 year median Oxford Knee Scores were 42.5, 46.5, 45 and 42.5, respectively. The 10 year median Objective American Knee Society Scores were 95 for all age groups., Conclusion: The cementless mobile bearing UKR has low reoperation and revision rates and similar functional outcomes in all age groups. Cementless UKR should be used in all age groups and age should not be considered a contraindication., Level of Evidence: III., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) deficiency is considered to be a contraindication for unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR); however, there is no evidence to support or contradict this. There are occasional circumstances where UKR in PCL deficient patients have been performed where the patient otherwise satisfies the indications for UKR. The aim of this paper is to describe the outcome of UKR in PCL deficient patients., Methods: A retrospective study of patients with painful medial compartment osteoarthritis and PCL deficiency treated with Oxford UKR between 2006 and 2015 was undertaken. Clinical records from a prospectively recorded database were reviewed and outcomes were assessed based on revision rate, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), American Knee Society score and Tegner Activity Score., Results: Nine patients were identified. The median age at surgery was 51 years (range 42-80) and median follow-up was 6 years (range 1-10). There was one bearing dislocation requiring open exchange. The outcome of seven patients was excellent (OKS > 41). Two patients, who were both elderly, had good outcomes (OKS 41 and 39). One patient had a poor outcome, but it is not clear if this was related to the knee as she had a learning disability and examination and radiographs of the knee were satisfactory., Conclusion: The results of this small series suggest that excellent results can be achieved with UKR for selected patients with medial osteoarthritis in a PCL deficient knee that was functioning well before the osteoarthritis developed. On the basis of this a larger study should be undertaken. Until more results are available PCL deficiency should be considered a relative contra-indication to UKR., Level of Evidence: IV., (© 2020. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is widely considered to be a pre-total knee replacement (TKR) particularly in the young. The implication of this is that it is sensible to do a UKR, even though it will be revised at some stage, as it will delay the need for a TKR. The chance of a UKR being revised during a patient's life time has not previously been calculated. The aim of this study was to estimate this lifetime revision risks for patients of different ages undergoing UKR., Methods: Calculations were based on data from a designer series of 1000 medial Oxford UKR with mean 10-year follow up. These UKR were implanted for the recommended indications using the recommended surgical technique. Parametric survival models were developed for patients of different ages based on observed data, and were extrapolated using a Markov model to estimate lifetime revision risk., Results: The estimated lifetime revision risk reduced with increasing age at surgery. Lifetime revision risk at age 55 was 15% (95% CI 12-19), at 65 it was 11% (8-13), at 75 it was 7% (5-9), and at 85 it was 4% (3-5)., Conclusion: Provided UKR is used appropriately, the lifetime revision risk is markedly lower than expected. UKR should be considered to be a definitive knee replacement rather than a Pre-TKR even in the young. These lifetime estimates, alongside established benefits for UKR in speed of recovery, morbidity, mortality and function, can be discussed with appropriate patients when considering whether to implant a UKR or TKR., Level of Evidence: III.

Purpose: Some health providers ration knee arthroplasty on the basis of body mass index (BMI). There is no long-term data on the outcome of medial mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) in different BMI groups. This study aimed to determine the effect of patient body mass index (BMI) on patient-reported outcomes and long-term survival of medial UKA in a large non-registry cohort. Our hypothesis is that increasing BMI would be associated with worse outcomes., Methods: Data were analysed from a prospective cohort of 1000 consecutive medial mobile-bearing Oxford UKA with mean 10-year follow-up. Patients were grouped: BMI < 25, BMI 25 to < 30, BMI 30 to < 35 and BMI 35+. Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and Tegner Activity Score were assessed at 1, 5 and 10 years. Kaplan-Meier survivorship was calculated and compared between BMI groups., Results: All groups had significant improvement in OKS and Tegner scores. BMI 35 + kg/m 2 experienced the greatest overall increase in mean OKS of 17.3 points (p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in ten-year survival, which was, from lowest BMI group to highest 92%, 95%, 94% and 93%., Conclusion: There was no difference in implant survival between groups, and although there was no consistent trend in postoperative OKS, the BMI 35+ group benefited the most from UKA. Therefore, when UKA is used for appropriate indications, high BMI should not be considered to be a contraindication. Furthermore rationing based on BMI seems unjustified, particularly when the commonest threshold (BMI 35) is used., Level of Evidence: III.

Purpose: Chondrocalcinosis can be associated with an inflammatory arthritis and aggressive joint destruction. There is uncertainty as to whether chondrocalcinosis represents a contraindication to unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). This study reports the outcome of a consecutive series of patients with chondrocalcinosis and medial compartment osteoarthritis treated with UKA matched to controls., Methods: Between 1998 and 2008, 88 patients with radiological chondrocalcinosis (R-CCK) and 67 patients with histological chondrocalcinosis (H-CCK) were treated for end-stage medial compartment arthritis with Oxford UKA. One-to-two matching was performed to controls, treated with UKA, but without evidence of chondrocalcinosis. Functional outcome and implant survival were assessed in each group., Results: The mean follow-up was 10 years. The mean Oxford Knee Score (OKS) at final follow-up was 43, 41 and 41 in H-CCK, R-CCK and control groups (change from baseline OKS was 21, 18 and 15, respectively). The change was significantly higher in H-CCK than in control but was not significantly different in R-CCK. Ten-year survival was 96 % in R-CCK, 86 % in H-CCK and 98 % in controls. Although the survival in H-CCK was significantly worse than in control, only one failure was due to disease progression., Conclusion: The presence of R-CCK does not influence functional outcome or survival following UKA. Pre-operative radiological evidence of CCK should not be considered to be a contraindication to UKA. H-CCK is associated with significantly improved clinical outcomes but also a higher revision rate compared with controls., Level of Evidence: Case control study, Level III.