Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2023; 36(08): 849-856
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1743497
Original Article

Midterm Outcomes in Lateral Unicompartment Knee Replacement: The Effect of Patient Age and Bearing Choice

Jeffrey Hartman
1   Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada
,
Johanna Dobransky
2   Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
,
Geoffrey F. Dervin
1   Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Isolated lateral compartment knee osteoarthritis (OA) affects between 7 and 10% of patients with knee OA. Although lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is an accepted treatment to manage this condition, it is performed relatively infrequently. The aim of this study was to evaluate the mid-term survivorship, radiographic outcomes, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). We performed a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of consecutive isolated lateral UKAs performed by a single surgeon at an academic institution between September 2007 and December 2015. Our primary outcome was failure defined as revision surgery to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Secondary outcomes included any additional surgery for any other reason. Forty-nine consecutive patients (27 females) with median age of 54.7 years (45.2–82.2) met the inclusion criteria. The survival rate for the whole cohort was 86.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 73.2–99.0) at 10 years as defined by conversion to TKA. There were a total of four lateral UKAs (all mobile bearings) revised to TKAs. The entire cohort demonstrated statistically significant improvements from preoperative PROMs compared with the most recent postoperative PROMs including the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and Tegner activity scale at a median 8.8 (1.7–12.2) years follow-up. Patients with mobile bearing underwent higher revision to TKA and reoperation for all indications compared with fixed-bearing lateral UKA. In this relatively young cohort, lateral UKA yielded acceptable long-term survival and satisfactory improvement in functional outcomes. Patients who had fixed-bearing implants had similar improvement and trended toward lower revision rates than those with mobile-bearing implants. Level III therapeutic: retrospective Study was performed.

Keywords

Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty - patient-reported outcome measures - survivorship - mobile bearing

Ethical Approval

This research conducted has been approved by the Ottawa Health Science Research Ethics Board prior to data collection and we have complied with ethical principles regarding research with human participants.


Note

The work was performed at The Ottawa Hospital. All authors have read and agree with the contents of this manuscript.




Publication History

Received: 15 June 2021

Accepted: 09 January 2022

Article published online:
09 March 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Scott CE, Nutton RW, Biant LC. Lateral compartment osteoarthritis of the knee: biomechanics and surgical management of end-stage disease. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B (04) 436-444
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Deroche E, Batailler C, Lording T, Neyret P, Servien E, Lustig S. High survival rate and very low wear of lateral unicompartmental arthroplasty at long term: a case series of 54 cases at a mean follow-up of 17 years. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34 (06) 1097-1104
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Willis-Owen CA, Brust K, Alsop H, Miraldo M, Cobb JP. Unicondylar knee arthroplasty in the UK National Health Service: an analysis of candidacy, outcome and cost efficacy. Knee 2009; 16 (06) 473-478
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 van der List JP, Chawla H, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD. Patients with isolated lateral osteoarthritis: unicompartmental or total knee arthroplasty?. Knee 2016; 23 (06) 968-974
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Smith E, Lee D, Masonis J, Melvin JS. Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. JBJS Rev 2020; 8 (03) e0044
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 van der List JP, McDonald LS, Pearle AD. Systematic review of medial versus lateral survivorship in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee 2015; 22 (06) 454-460
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Evans JT, Walker RW, Evans JP, Blom AW, Sayers A, Whitehouse MR. How long does a knee replacement last? A systematic review and meta-analysis of case series and national registry reports with more than 15 years of follow-up. Lancet 2019; 393 (10172): 655-663
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Australian hip and knee replacement Registry 2020 report. 2020 . Accessed on October 10, 2021 at: https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/documents/10180/689619/Hip%2C+Knee+%26+Shoulder+Arthroplasty+New/6a07a3b8-8767-06cf-9069-d165dc9baca7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hamilton TW, Rizkalla JM, Kontochristos L. et al. The interaction of caseload and usage in determining outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (10) 3228-3237.e2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Mohammad HR, Matharu GS, Judge A, Murray DW. The effect of surgeon caseload on the relative revision rate of cemented and cementless unicompartmental knee replacements: an analysis from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2020; 102 (08) 644-653
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Johnson Jr WB, Engh Jr CA, Parks NL, Hamilton WG, Ho PH, Fricka KB. A lower threshold for revision of aseptic unicompartmental vs total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2020; 102-B (6_Supple_A): 91-95
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kennedy JA, Palan J, Mellon SJ. et al. Most unicompartmental knee replacement revisions could be avoided: a radiographic evaluation of revised Oxford knees in the National Joint Registry. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2020; 28 (12) 3926-3934
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Sheehy L, Felson D, Zhang Y. et al. Does measurement of the anatomic axis consistently predict hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA) for knee alignment studies in osteoarthritis? Analysis of long limb radiographs from the multicenter osteoarthritis (MOST) study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2011; 19 (01) 58-64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS. Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis 1957; 16 (04) 494-502
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Berliner ZP, Bhagat PV, Zawodzinski RE, Turner AL, Hepinstall MS, Rodriguez JA. Failure of a unidirectional barbed-suture device at the arthrotomy repair site following total and unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a case report. JBJS Case Connect 2018; 8 (04) e80
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kennedy JA, Mohammad HR, Yang I. et al. Oxford domed lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2020; 102-B (08) 1033-1040
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Mohammad HR, Matharu GS, Judge A, Murray DW. The mid- to long-term outcomes of the lateral domed Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement: an analysis from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man. J Arthroplasty 2021; 36 (01) 107-111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Walker T, Gotterbarm T, Bruckner T, Merle C, Streit MR. Total versus unicompartmental knee replacement for isolated lateral osteoarthritis: a matched-pairs study. Int Orthop 2014; 38 (11) 2259-2264
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Robinson BJ, Rees JL, Price AJ, Beard DJ, Murray DM. OHKG. Oxford Hip and Knee Group. A kinematic study of lateral unicompartmental arthroplasty. Knee 2002; 9 (03) 237-240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Heyse TJ, Tibesku CO. Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a review. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2010; 130 (12) 1539-1548
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Bellemans J, Colyn W, Vandenneucker H, Victor J. The Chitranjan Ranawat award: is neutral mechanical alignment normal for all patients? The concept of constitutional varus. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470 (01) 45-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Weston-Simons JS, Pandit H, Gill HS. et al. The management of mobile bearing dislocation in the Oxford lateral unicompartmental knee replacement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2011; 19 (12) 2023-2026
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Liddle AD, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray DW. Effect of surgical caseload on revision rate following total and unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016; 98 (01) 1-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Burger JA, Kleeblad LJ, Sierevelt IN, Horstmann WG, Nolte PA. Bearing design influences short- to mid-term survivorship, but not functional outcomes following lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2019; 27 (07) 2276-2288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Freeman MA, Pinskerova V. The movement of the normal tibio-femoral joint. J Biomech 2005; 38 (02) 197-208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Pinskerova V, Johal P, Nakagawa S. et al. Does the femur roll-back with flexion?. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2004; 86 (06) 925-931
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Tokuhara Y, Kadoya Y, Nakagawa S, Kobayashi A, Takaoka K. The flexion gap in normal knees. An MRI study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2004; 86 (08) 1133-1136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Baré JV, Gill HS, Beard DJ, Murray DW. A convex lateral tibial plateau for knee replacement. Knee 2006; 13 (02) 122-126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Pandit H, Jenkins C, Beard DJ. et al. Mobile bearing dislocation in lateral unicompartmental knee replacement. Knee 2010; 17 (06) 392-397
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Fornell S, Prada E, Barrena P, García-Mendoza A, Borrego E, Domecq G. Mid-term outcomes of mobile-bearing lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee 2018; 25 (06) 1206-1213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar