Abstract
Converting UKA to TKA can be difficult, and specialised techniques are needed. Issues include bone loss, joint line approximation, sizing, and rotation. Determining the complexity of conversion preoperatively helps predict the need for augmentation, grafting, stems, or constraint.
In a 2009 study from our center, 50 UKA revised to TKA (1997–2007) were reviewed: 9 modular fixed-bearing, 4 metal-backed nonmodular fixed-bearing, 8 resurfacing onlay, 10 all-polyethylene step-cut, and 19 mobile bearing designs; 5 knees failed due to infection, 5 due to wear and/or instability, 10 for pain or progression of arthritis, 8 for tibial fracture or severe subsidence, and 22 due to loosening of either one or both components. Insert thickness was no different between implants or failure modes. Stemmed component use was most frequent with nonmodular components (50%), all-polyethylene step-cut implants (44%), and modular fixed-bearing implants (33%; P=0.40). Stem use was highest in tibial fracture (86%; P=0.002). Augment use was highest among all-polyethylene step-cut implants (all-polyethylene, 56%; metal-backed, 50%; modular fixed-bearing, 33%; P=0.01). Augmentation use was highest in fracture (86%) and infection (67%), with a significant difference noted between failure modes (P=0.003). Failure of nonmodular all-polyethylene step-cut devices was more complex than resurfacing or mobile bearing. Reestablishing the joint line, ligamentous balance, and durable fixation are critical to assuring a primary outcome.
In a 2013 multicenter study of 3 institutions including ours, a total of 175 revisions of medial UKA in 168 patients (average age: 66 years) performed from 1995 to 2009 with a minimum 2-year clinical follow-up were reviewed. The average time from UKA to revision TKA was 71.5 months (2–262). The four most common reasons for failure were femoral or tibial loosening (55%), progressive arthritis of the lateral or patellofemoral joints (34%), polyethylene failure (4%) and infection (3%). Mean follow-up after revision was 75 months. Nine of 175 knees (4.5%) were subsequently revised at an average of 48 months (6–123). The average Knee Society pain and function score increased to 75 and 66, respectively. In the present series, the re-revision rate after revision TKA from UKA was 4.5% at an average of 75 months.
In a current study from our center, 184 patients (193 UKA) underwent revision procedures (1996–2015) with minimum 2-year follow-up. Mean age was 63.5 (37–84) years, body mass index was 32.3 (19–57) kg/m2, and interval after UKA was 4.8 (0–35) years. Most prevalent indications for revision were aseptic loosening (42%), arthritic progression (20%) and tibial collapse (14%). At 6.1 years mean follow-up (2–20), 8 knees (4.1%) have required re-revision involving any part, which is similar to what we recently reported at 5.5 years in a group of patients who underwent primary TKA (6 of 189; 3.2%), and much lower than what we observed at 6.0 years in a recent report of patients who underwent aseptic revision TKA (35 of 278; 12.6%). In the study group, Knee Society clinical and function scores improved from 50.8 and 52.1 preoperatively to 83.4 and 67.6 at most recent evaluation, respectively. Re-revisions were for aseptic loosening (3), instability (2), arthrofibrosis (2), and infection (1).
Compared to published individual institution and national registry data, re-revision rates of failed UKA are equivalent to revision rates of primary TKA and substantially better than re-revision rates of revision TKA. These data should be used to counsel patients undergoing revision UKA to TKA.
