ABSTRACT
This prospective randomized study compared the clinical and radiographic outcomes
of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty. The group consisted
of 34 patients (19 males and 15 females), who had a mean age of 73 years (range, 49
to 86 years), and who fit the criteria for bilateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
Each patient received a unicompartmental prosthesis in one knee and a total knee arthroplasty
in the other during a single anesthetic session. At a mean follow-up of 5 years (range,
24 to 89 months), the Knee Society pain and function scores were similar for both
groups. There were no radiographic failures. Survivorship of the unicompartmental
group was 85% compared with 100% in the total knee group (p = 0.05). All of the prostheses that failed had an all-polyethylene tibial component.
These results suggest that unicompartmental knee arthroplasty may not offer similar
survivorship when compared with total knee arthroplasty.
KEYWORDS
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty - total knee arthroplasty - bilateral - polyethylene
tibial component
REFERENCES
- 1
Marmor L.
Marmor modular knee in unicompartmental disease. Minimum four-year follow-up.
J Bone Joint Surg Am.
1979;
61
(3)
347-353
- 2
Berger R A, Meneghini R M, Jacobs J J et al..
Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum of ten years of follow-up.
J Bone Joint Surg Am.
2005;
87
(5)
999-1006
- 3
Murray D W, Goodfellow J W, O'Connor J J.
The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a ten-year survival study.
J Bone Joint Surg Br.
1998;
80
(6)
983-989
- 4
Cartier P, Sanouiller J L, Grelsamer R P.
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty surgery. 10-year minimum follow-up period.
J Arthroplasty.
1996;
11
(7)
782-788
- 5
Argenson J N, Chevrol-Benkeddache Y, Aubaniac J M.
Modern unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cement: a three to ten-year follow-up
study.
J Bone Joint Surg Am.
2002;
84-A
(12)
2235-2239
- 6
Tabor Jr O B, Tabor O B, Bernard M, Wan J Y.
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: long-term success in middle-age and obese patients.
J Surg Orthop Adv.
2005;
14
(2)
59-63
- 7
Steele R G, Hutabarat S, Evans R L, Ackroyd C E, Newman J H.
Survivorship of the St Georg Sled medial unicompartmental knee replacement beyond
ten years.
J Bone Joint Surg Br.
2006;
88
(9)
1164-1168
- 8
Svärd U C, Price A J.
Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. A survival analysis of an independent
series.
J Bone Joint Surg Br.
2001;
83
(2)
191-194
- 9
Dalury D F, Fisher D A, Adams M J, Gonzales R A.
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compares favorably to total knee arthroplasty in
the same patient.
Orthopedics.
2009;
32
(4)
253-255
- 10
Laurencin C T, Zelicof S B, Scott R D, Ewald F C.
Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in the same patient. A comparative
study.
Clin Orthop Relat Res.
1991;
(273)
151-156
- 11
Deshmukh R V, Scott R D.
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for younger patients: an alternative view.
Clin Orthop Relat Res.
2002;
(404)
108-112
- 12
Urban M K, Chisholm M, Wukovits B.
Are postoperative complications more common with single-stage bilateral (SBTKR) than
with unilateral knee arthroplasty: guidelines for patients scheduled for SBTKR.
HSS J.
2006;
2
(1)
78-82
- 13
Ritter M A, Harty L D.
Debate: simultaneous bilateral knee replacements: the outcomes justify its use.
Clin Orthop Relat Res.
2004;
(428)
84-86
- 14
Bonutti P M, Zywiel M G, Ulrich S D, Stroh D A, Seyler T M, Mont M A.
A comparison of subvastus and midvastus approaches in minimally invasive total knee
arthroplasty.
J Bone Joint Surg Am.
2010;
92
(3)
575-582
- 15
Insall J N, Dorr L D, Scott R D, Scott W N.
Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system.
Clin Orthop Relat Res.
1989;
(248)
13-14
- 16
Kellgren J H, Lawrence J S.
Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis.
Ann Rheum Dis.
1957;
16
(4)
494-502
- 17
Vorlat P, Putzeys G, Cottenie D et al..
The Oxford unicompartmental knee prosthesis: an independent 10-year survival analysis.
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc.
2006;
14
(1)
40-45
- 18
Emerson Jr R H, Higgins L L.
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with the oxford prosthesis in patients with medial
compartment arthritis.
J Bone Joint Surg Am.
2008;
90
(1)
118-122
- 19
W-Dahl A, Robertsson O, Lidgren L.
Surgery for knee osteoarthritis in younger patients.
Acta Orthop.
2010;
81
(2)
161-164
- 20
Furnes O, Espehaug B, Lie S A, Vollset S E, Engesaeter L B, Havelin L I.
Failure mechanisms after unicompartmental and tricompartmental primary knee replacement
with cement.
J Bone Joint Surg Am.
2007;
89
(3)
519-525
- 21
Saenz C L, McGrath M S, Marker D R, Seyler T M, Mont M A, Bonutti P M.
Early failure of a unicompartmental knee arthroplasty design with an all-polyethylene
tibial component.
Knee.
2010;
17
(1)
53-56
- 22
Maduekwe U I, Zywiel M G, Bonutti P M, Johnson A J, Delanois R E, Mont M A.
Scientific evidence for the use of modern unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
Expert Rev Med Devices.
2010;
7
(2)
219-239
- 23
Sah A P, Scott R D.
Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty through a medial approach. Study with an
average five-year follow-up.
J Bone Joint Surg Am.
2007;
89
(9)
1948-1954
Michael A. MontM.D.
Center for Joint Preservation and Reconstruction, Rubin Institute for Advanced Orthopedics,
Sinai Hospital of Baltimore
2401 West Belvedere Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21215
eMail: mmont@lifebridgehealth.org
eMail: rhondamont@aol.com
