UKA TO TKA: IS IT AS GOOD AS A PRIMARY RESULT?

C.J. Della Valle

doi:10.1302/1358-992X.99BSUPP_7.CCJR2016-111

Article alerts Social media

Current issue

General Orthopaedics

UKA TO TKA: IS IT AS GOOD AS A PRIMARY RESULT?

The Current Concepts in Joint Replacement (CCJR) Winter Meeting, 14 – 17 December 2016.

C.J. Della Valle

UKA TO TKA: IS IT AS GOOD AS A PRIMARY RESULT?

Valle CD. UKA TO TKA: IS IT AS GOOD AS A PRIMARY RESULT?. Orthop Procs. 2017;99-B(SUPP_7):111-111. doi:10.1302/1358-992X.99BSUPP_7.CCJR2016-111

Valle, C.J. Della. “UKA TO TKA: IS IT AS GOOD AS A PRIMARY RESULT?.” Orthopaedic Proceedings, vol. 99-B, no. SUPP_7, 2017, pp. 111-111., https://doi.org/10.1302/1358-992X.99BSUPP_7.CCJR2016-111

Valle, C. D. (2017). UKA TO TKA: IS IT AS GOOD AS A PRIMARY RESULT?. Orthopaedic Proceedings, 99-B(SUPP_7), 111-111. https://doi.org/10.1302/1358-992X.99BSUPP_7.CCJR2016-111

Valle, C. D. (2017) “UKA TO TKA: IS IT AS GOOD AS A PRIMARY RESULT?.” Orthopaedic Proceedings, 99-B(SUPP_7), pp. 111-111. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1302/1358-992X.99BSUPP_7.CCJR2016-111

Valle, C.J. Della. “UKA TO TKA: IS IT AS GOOD AS A PRIMARY RESULT?.” Orthopaedic Proceedings 99-B, no. SUPP_7 (2017): 111-111. https://doi.org/10.1302/1358-992X.99BSUPP_7.CCJR2016-111

Valle CD. UKA TO TKA: IS IT AS GOOD AS A PRIMARY RESULT?. Orthop Procs. 2017 Apr 1;99-B(SUPP_7):111-111. https://doi.org/10.1302/1358-992X.99BSUPP_7.CCJR2016-111

Copy to clipboard

BibTeX

EndNote

RIS

Abstract

As with any revision knee arthroplasty, the first rule of revision is to ensure that the reason for failure has been identified, as revision for pain alone is associated with poor results. This is particularly important when considering revision of a UKA, as surgeons may have a lower threshold for revision than following TKA given the perception that the revision is “easy” and that the pain is “probably from the unresurfaced compartments”.

In a multi-center study, we found that many patients undergoing revision of a failed UKA do not have an appropriate evaluation for infection. Evaluation should include a screening ESR and CRP and if abnormal, an aspiration of the knee joint for synovial fluid WBC count, differential and culture.

To revise a UKA to a TKA, we perform the revision as we would a primary TKA, ignoring the implanted femoral component and using it to assist with reference of femoral component rotation and for the distal femoral cut; the component is not removed until it must for the final preparation. After finishing the femoral component cuts, the tibia is completely exposed prior to carefully removing the tibial component and re-cutting the tibia. In our experience of 45 consecutive both component revisions of UKA to TKA at Rush, 44 used primary implants (98%), including cruciate retaining implants in 36 of these 44 knees (82%; the balance were PS implants) and tibial stems were utilised in 6 of 44 knees (14%).

In order to better understand the outcomes of revision of failed UKA we studied 49 patients revised from UKA to TKA and 43 revised from HTO to TKA and matched them to 43 aseptic, both component revision TKA and 97 primary TKA. At a mean of 4.8 years, the KSS and Function Scores in the UKA to TKA, HTO to TKA and primary TKA cohorts were similar. Total operative times were significantly higher in the HTO to TKA and revision TKA groups. Length of hospital stay was shorter in the primary TKA cohort. The rate of complications and reoperations were higher in the HTO to TKA and revision TKA groups compared to the UKA to TKA and primary TKA groups. Based on these results, we believe that revising an HTO and UKA to a TKA both had functional outcomes more similar to a primary than a revision TKA, however, the complication rate of revising an HTO was more similar to a revision than a primary TKA.