Abstract
Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is an established treatment for single compartment end-stage arthrosis with good recorded survivorship. UKRs are often implanted into more active younger patients, but patient selection remains controversial. A recent study, led by the Royal College of Surgeons Clinical Effectiveness Unit, demonstrated that prosthesis revision rates decrease strongly with age (Van Der Meulen et al 2008). It has therefore been suggested that UKR should only be considered in elderly patients. This contrasts our observed experience of early revision cases leading us to compare these patients with a control group.
Between September 2002 and 2008, 812 Oxford Mobile Bearing Medial UKRs were implanted. We compared all patients who underwent UKR revision to Total Knee Replacement (TKR) against a control group of 50 consecutive UKR patients.
20 implants have required revision to TKR in 19 patients since 2002. Median age at index surgery was 68 (range 48-81), median BMI was 31 (range 25-41.5), 17 patients were female (85%), and median implant survival was 25 months (range 6-57). Control group median age at index surgery was 66 (range 46-81), median BMI was 30 (range 22-51), and 27 patients were female (54%). Median Oxford Knee Score recorded in September 2009 was 36 (range 14-54) for revision patients and 21 (range 14-39) for the control group (p=0.021).
Our UKR patients with early failure requiring revision are far more likely to be female (p=0.015), as well as older and with a higher BMI than the control group. We feel this is a subset of patients at high risk of failure, despite meeting all criteria for UKR. The underlying causes are likely to be multifactorial, but a key factor may be that this group has varus tricompartment osteoarthritis rather than classical anteromedial osteoarthritis. Our data counters recent advice based on National Joint Registry data.
