Search

Purpose: Due to ageing population, the implantation rate of total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) is continuously growing. Aseptic revisions in primary knee arthroplasty are a major cause of revision. The aim of the following study was to determinate the incidence and reasons of aseptic revisions in constrained and unconstrained TKA, as well as in unicondylar knee arthroplasties (UKAs)., Methods: Data collection was performed using the German Arthroplasty Registry. Reasons for aseptic revisions were calculated. Incidence and comparison of aseptic revisions were analysed using Kaplan-Meier estimates. A multiple χ 2 test with Holm's method was used to detect group differences in ligament ruptures., Results: Overall, 300,998 cases of knee arthroplasty with 254,144 (84.4%) unconstrained TKA, 9993 (3.3%) constrained TKA and 36,861 (12.3%) UKA were analysed. Aseptic revision rate in UKA was significantly increased compared to unconstrained and constrained TKA (p < 0.0001). In constrained TKA, a 2.0% revision rate for aseptic reasons were reported after 1 year, while in unconstrained TKA 1.1% and in UKA, 2.7% of revisions were identified. After 7 years in constrained TKA 3.3%, in unconstrained TKA 2.8%, and in UKA 7.8% sustained aseptic revision. Ligament instability was the leading cause of aseptic revision accounting for 13.7% in unconstrained TKA. In constrained TKA, 2.8% resulted in a revision due to ligament instability. In the UKA, the most frequent cause of revisions was tibial loosening, accounting for 14.6% of cases, while progression of osteoarthritis accounted for 7.9% of revisions. Ligament instability was observed in 14.1% of males compared to 15.9% of females in unconstrained TKA and in 4.6% in both genders in UKA., Conclusion: In patients with UKA, aseptic revision rates are significantly higher compared to unconstrained and constrained TKA. Ligament instability was the leading cause of aseptic revision in unconstrained TKA. In UKA, the most frequent cause of revisions was tibial loosening, while progression of osteoarthritis was the second most frequent cause of revisions. Comparable levels of ligament instability were observed in both sexes., Level of Evidence: Level III, 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: There is concern that using cementless components may increase polyethylene wear of the Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement (OUKR). Therefore, this study aimed to measure bearing wear at 10 years in patients from a randomized trial comparing Phase 3 cemented and cementless OUKRs and to investigate factors that may affect wear. It was hypothesized that there would be no difference in wear rate between cemented and cementless OUKRs., Methods: Bearing thickness was determined using radiostereometric analysis at postoperative, 3-month, 6-month, 1-year, 2-year, 5-year and 10-year timepoints. As creep occurs early, wear rate was calculated using linear regression between 6 months and 10 years for 39 knees (20 cemented, 19 cementless). Associations between wear and implant, surgical and patient factors were analysed., Results: The linear wear rate of the Phase 3 OUKR was 0.06 mm/year with no significant difference (p = 0.18) between cemented (0.054 mm/year) and cementless (0.063 mm/year) implants. Age, Oxford Knee Score, component size and bearing thickness had no correlation with wear. A body mass index ≥ 30 was associated with a significantly lower wear rate (p = 0.007) as was having ≥80% femoral component contact area on the bearing (p = 0.003). Bearings positioned ≥1.5 mm from the tibial wall had a significantly higher wear rate (p = 0.002)., Conclusions: At 10 years, the Phase 3 OUKR linear wear rate is low and not associated with the fixation method. To minimize the risk of wear-related bearing fracture in the very long-term surgeons should consider using 4 mm bearings in very young active patients and ensure that components are appropriately positioned, which is facilitated by the current instrumentation., Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative 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: The Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) has a fully congruent mobile bearing to minimise wear. However, with younger higher demand patients, wear remains a concern. The aim of this study was to quantify the wear rate of Phase 3 Oxford UKR bearings over the course of 5 years and to identify the factors that influence it., Methods: 40 medial Oxford UKRs recruited for a randomised study of cemented and cementless fixation were studied with Radiostereometric analysis (RSA) at 1 week, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 5 years post-operatively and bearing thickness was calculated. Penetration, defined as the change in thickness compared to the 1-week measurement, was determined. Creep (early penetration) and wear (late penetration at a constant rate) were calculated. The influence of demographic factors, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Tegner score, fixation and bearing overhang (determined by RSA) on wear was analysed., Results: After 6 months the penetration rate was constant, indicating that wear alone was occurring. The wear rate was 0.07 mm/year (SD 0.03). The creep was 0.06 mm with about 95% occurring during the first 3 months. There was no significant relationship between fixation (cemented/cementless), age, component size, OKS and Tegner score with wear rate. Increasing BMI was associated with decreasing wear (p = 0.042). 37/40 bearings overhung the tibia to some extent and 23/40 overhung the tibia medially. An increase in the area of overhang (p = 0.036), amount of medial overhang (p = 0.028) and distance between the bearing and tibial wall (p = 0.019) were associated with increased wear. Bearings that did not overhang (0.06 mm/year) had less wear (p = 0.025) than those that did (0.08 mm/year). There was no relationship (p = 0.6) between the femoral contact area and wear., Conclusion: During the first three to six months after implantation, the bearing becomes 0.06 mm thinner due to creep. The combined wear rate of the upper and lower surfaces of the bearing is constant (0.07 mm/year). The wear is lower if the bearing does not overhang the tibia so surgeons should aim for the bearing to be close to the tibial wall. The orientation of the femoral component does not influence wear., Level of Evidence: Retrospective Study, Level III., (© 2020. The Author(s).)

Purpose: The aim of this study was to report and compare the long-term revision rate, revision indications and patient reported outcome measures of cemented and cementless unicompartmental knee replacements (UKR)., Methods: Databases Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central of Controlled Trials were searched to identify all UKR studies reporting the ≥ 10 year clinical outcomes. Revision rates per 100 component years [% per annum (% pa)] were calculated by fixation type and then, subgroup analyses for fixed and mobile bearing UKRs were performed. Mechanisms of failure and patient reported outcome measures are reported., Results: 25 studies were eligible for inclusion with a total of 10,736 UKRs, in which there were 8790 cemented and 1946 cementless knee replacements. The revision rate was 0.73% pa (CI 0.66-0.80) and 0.45% pa (CI 0.34-0.58) per 100 component years, respectively, with the cementless having a significantly (p < 0.001) lower overall revision rate. Therefore, based on these studies, the expected 10-year survival of cementless UKR would be 95.5% and cemented 92.7%. Subgroup analysis revealed this difference remained significant for the Oxford UKR (0.37% pa vs 0.77% pa, p < 0.001), but for non-Oxford UKRs there were no significant differences in revision rates of cemented and cementless UKRs (0.57% pa vs 0.69% pa, p = 0.41). Mobile bearing UKRs had significantly lower revision rates than fixed bearing UKRs in cementless (p = 0.001), but not cemented groups (p = 0.13). Overall the revision rates for aseptic loosening and disease progression were significantly lower (p = 0.02 and p = 0.009 respectively) in the cementless group compared to the cemented group (0.06 vs 0.13% pa and 0.10 vs 0.21% pa respectively)., Conclusions: Cementless fixation had reduced long-term revision rates compared to cemented for the Oxford UKR. For the non-Oxford UKRs, the revision rates of cementless and cemented fixation types were equivalent. Therefore, cementless UKRs offer at least equivalent if not lower revision rates compared to cemented UKRs., Level of Evidence: III., (© 2020. European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA).)

Purpose: To evaluate whether long-term (10-year minimum) patient outcomes and survival of fixed-bearing medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) in patients aged  ≤ 60 years were favorable despite non-conventional age criteria., Methods: The authors reviewed the records of 91 consecutive medial UKAs performed in patients aged ≤ 60 by a single surgeon. All patients received the same fixed-bearing M/G Unicompartmental Knee System. Patients records were updated, noting complications or revisions, and Oxford Knee Scores and overall satisfaction collected. If deceased, the general practitioner or next of kin provided data., Results: Of the initial 91 knees, 10 were revised, 6 were deceased, and 1 was lost to follow-up. The final cohort of 74 knees was aged 54.3 ± 4.3 years (range 41.8-60.6) at index surgery. Using revision of any component as endpoint, the present series had a KM survival of 92.9% (CI 84.8-96.7%) at 10 years, and 87.8% (CI 78.4-93.2%) at 15 years, and a single non-fatal DVT was reported. At final follow-up of 15 ± 1.3 years (range 11-18), OKS (available for all 74 knees) was 38.4 ± 8.4 (range 18-48). Overall patients were pleased or very pleased with 72 of the knees (97%)., Conclusion: Fixed-bearing medial UKA yields favorable results in the treatment of single compartment osteoarthritis of the knee in patients ≤ 60 years. The present study demonstrates low complication rates, good-to-excellent long-term patient outcomes, and satisfactory implant survival for this age group considering the advantages of UKA., Level of Evidence: Level IV, retrospective cohort study.