Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2018; 31(10): 992-998
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1625961
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: The Past, Current Controversies, and Future Perspectives

Sim Johal
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, Norfolk, United Kingdom
,
Naoki Nakano
2   Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom
,
Mark Baxter
3   Clinical Research Unit, Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, United Kingdom
,
Ihab Hujazi
4   North West Deanery, Manchester, United Kingdom
,
Hemant Pandit
5   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom
6   Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
,
Vikas Khanduja
2   Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

13 July 2017

27 December 2017

Publication Date:
07 March 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a bone conserving and ligament-sparing procedure that reliably restores normal knee kinematics and function for arthritis limited either to the medial or the lateral compartment of the knee. Although there is enough evidence to demonstrate that the UKA offers good medium to long-term success given the correct patient selection, prosthesis design, and implantation technique, there are several reports to suggest inferior survival rates in comparison with the total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Furthermore, it is a specialized procedure which works well in the hands of the experienced operator and therefore different authors' tend to draw different conclusions based on the same evidence, and as a result, there is great variability in the usage of the UKA. The aim of this current concept's review is to present to the readers the history of the UKA especially with reference to implant design, discuss current controversies, and outline the future perspectives of this novel procedure.

Keywords

unicompartmental knee arthroplasty - unicompartmental knee replacement - osteoarthritis - outcomes - implant design - UKA - UKR
 

  • References

  • 1 Ahlbäck S. Osteoarthrosis of the knee. A radiographic investigation. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh) 1968; 277: 7-72
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Shetty A, Tindall A, Ting P, Heatley F. The evolution of total knee arthroscopy. Part II: the hinged knee replacement and the semi constrained knee replacement. Curr Orthop 2003; 17: 403-407
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Australian Joint Registry Annual Report; 2016
    PubMed
  • 4 NJR Online Annual Report 2016 ; 2016
    PubMed
  • 5 Price AJ, Svard U. A second decade lifetable survival analysis of the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469 (01) 174-179
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Robertsson O, Knutson K, Lewold S, Lidgren L. The routine of surgical management reduces failure after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2001; 83 (01) 45-49
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 MacIntosh DL, Hunter GA. The use of the hemiarthroplasty prosthesis for advanced osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1972; 54 (02) 244-255
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 McKeever DC. The classic: tibial plateau prosthesis.1960. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005; 440 (440) 4-8
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Springer BD, Scott RD, Sah AP, Carrington R. McKeever hemiarthroplasty of the knee in patients less than sixty years old. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88 (02) 366-371
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Bailie AG, Lewis PL, Brumby SA, Roy S, Paterson RS, Campbell DG. The Unispacer knee implant: early clinical results. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008; 90 (04) 446-450
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Gunston FH. Polycentric knee arthroplasty. Prosthetic simulation of normal knee movement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1971; 53 (02) 272-277
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Mackinnon J, Young S, Baily RA. The St Georg sledge for unicompartmental replacement of the knee. A prospective study of 115 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1988; 70 (02) 217-223
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Engelbrecht E, Siegel A, Rottger J, Buchholz HW. Statistics of total knee replacement: partial and total knee replacement, design St. Georg: a review of a 4-year observation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1976; (120) 54-64
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Ackroyd CE, Whitehouse SL, Newman JH, Joslin CC. A comparative study of the medial St Georg sled and kinematic total knee arthroplasties. Ten-year survivorship. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002; 84 (05) 667-672
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Shaw NE, Chatterjee RK. Manchester knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1978; 60-B (03) 310-314
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Marmor L. The modular knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1973; (94) 242-248
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Insall J, Walker P. Unicondylar knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1976; (120) 83-85
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Laskin RS. Unicompartmental tibiofemoral resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1978; 60 (02) 182-185
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Cavendish ME, Wright JT. The Liverpool Mark II knee prosthesis. A preliminary report. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1978; 60-B (03) 315-318
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Walker SJ, Sharma P, Parr N, Cavendish ME. The long-term results of the Liverpool Mark II knee prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1986; 68 (01) 111-116
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Shetty A, Tindall A, Ting P, Heatley F. The evolution of total knee arthroscopy. Part III: surface replacement. Curr Orthop 2003; 17: 478-481
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Insall J, Aglietti P. A five to seven-year follow-up of unicondylar arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1980; 62 (08) 1329-1337
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Insall JN, Ranawat CS, Aglietti P, Shine J. A comparison of four models of total knee-replacement prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1976; 58 (06) 754-765
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Goodfellow J, O'Connor J. The mechanics of the knee and prosthesis design. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1978; 60-B (03) 358-369
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Murray DW, Goodfellow JW, O'Connor JJ. The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a ten-year survival study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998; 80 (06) 983-989
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Weale AE, Murray DW, Crawford R. , et al. Does arthritis progress in the retained compartments after ‘Oxford’ medial unicompartmental arthroplasty? A clinical and radiological study with a minimum ten-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1999; 81 (05) 783-789
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Price AJ, Webb J, Topf H, Dodd CA, Goodfellow JW, Murray DW. ; Oxford Hip and Knee Group Rapid recovery after oxford unicompartmental arthroplasty through a short incision. J Arthroplasty 2001; 16 (08) 970-976
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Koskinen E, Eskelinen A, Paavolainen P, Pulkkinen P, Remes V. Comparison of survival and cost-effectiveness between unicondylar arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty in patients with primary osteoarthritis: a follow-up study of 50,493 knee replacements from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2008; 79 (04) 499-507
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Ridgeway SR, McAuley JP, Ammeen DJ, Engh GA. The effect of alignment of the knee on the outcome of unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002; 84 (03) 351-355
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Gillquist J, Messner K. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and the long-term incidence of gonarthrosis. Sports Med 1999; 27 (03) 143-156
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Goodfellow JW, Kershaw CJ, Benson MK, O'Connor JJ. The Oxford Knee for unicompartmental osteoarthritis. The first 103 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1988; 70 (05) 692-701
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Goodfellow J, O'Connor J. The anterior cruciate ligament in knee arthroplasty. A risk-factor with unconstrained meniscal prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1992; (276) 245-252
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Engh GA, Ammeen D. Is an intact anterior cruciate ligament needed in order to have a well-functioning unicondylar knee replacement?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; (428) 170-173
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Tinius M, Hepp P, Becker R. Combined unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2012; 20 (01) 81-87
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Pandit H, Beard DJ, Jenkins C. , et al. Combined anterior cruciate reconstruction and Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006; 88 (07) 887-892
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Trompeter AJ, Gill K, Appleton MA, Palmer SH. Predicting anterior cruciate ligament integrity in patients with osteoarthritis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2009; 17 (06) 595-599
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Citak M, Bosscher MR, Citak M, Musahl V, Pearle AD, Suero EM. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2011; 19 (10) 1683-1688
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Pandit H, Van Duren BH, Gallagher JA. , et al. Combined anterior cruciate reconstruction and Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: in vivo kinematics. Knee 2008; 15 (02) 101-106
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Kozinn SC, Scott R. Unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1989; 71 (01) 145-150
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Pandit H, Jenkins C, Gill HS. , et al. Unnecessary contraindications for mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011; 93 (05) 622-628
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Berend KR, Lombardi Jr AV, Morris MJ, Hurst JM, Kavolus JJ. Does preoperative patellofemoral joint state affect medial unicompartmental arthroplasty survival?. Orthopedics 2011; 34 (09) e494-e496
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Kang SN, Smith TO, Sprenger De Rover WB, Walton NP. Pre-operative patellofemoral degenerative changes do not affect the outcome after medial Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement: a report from an independent centre. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011; 93 (04) 476-478
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 43 Heyse TJ, Khefacha A, Cartier P. UKA in combination with PFR at average 12-year follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2010; 130 (10) 1227-1230
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 Morrison TA, Nyce JD, Macaulay WB, Geller JA. Early adverse results with bicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort comparison to total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26 (6, Suppl): 35-39
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 45 Epinette JA, Manley MT. Is hydroxyapatite a reliable fixation option in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty? A 5- to 13-year experience with the hydroxyapatite-coated unix prosthesis. J Knee Surg 2008; 21 (04) 299-306
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 46 Lindstrand A, Stenström A, Egund N. The PCA unicompartmental knee. A 1-4-year comparison of fixation with or without cement. Acta Orthop Scand 1988; 59 (06) 695-700
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 47 Campi S, Pandit HG, Dodd CA, Murray DW. Cementless fixation in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25 (03) 736-745
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 48 Li MG, Yao F, Joss B, Ioppolo J, Nivbrant B, Wood D. Mobile vs. fixed bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a randomized study on short term clinical outcomes and knee kinematics. Knee 2006; 13 (05) 365-370
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 49 Manson TT, Kelly NH, Lipman JD, Wright TM, Westrich GH. Unicondylar knee retrieval analysis. J Arthroplasty 2010; 25 (6, Suppl): 108-111
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 50 Kretzer JP, Jakubowitz E, Reinders J. , et al. Wear analysis of unicondylar mobile bearing and fixed bearing knee systems: a knee simulator study. Acta Biomater 2011; 7 (02) 710-715
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 51 Saccomanni B. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a review of literature. Clin Rheumatol 2010; 29 (04) 339-346
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 52 Collier MB, Engh Jr CA, McAuley JP, Engh GA. Factors associated with the loss of thickness of polyethylene tibial bearings after knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89 (06) 1306-1314
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 53 Emerson Jr RH, Hansborough T, Reitman RD, Rosenfeldt W, Higgins LL. Comparison of a mobile with a fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee implant. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002; (404) 62-70
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 54 Parratte S, Pauly V, Aubaniac JM, Argenson JN. No long-term difference between fixed and mobile medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470 (01) 61-68
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 55 Catani F, Benedetti MG, Bianchi L, Marchionni V, Giannini S, Leardini A. Muscle activity around the knee and gait performance in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty patients: a comparative study on fixed- and mobile-bearing designs. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2012; 20 (06) 1042-1048
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 56 Bhattacharya R, Scott CE, Morris HE, Wade F, Nutton RW. Survivorship and patient satisfaction of a fixed bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty incorporating an all-polyethylene tibial component. Knee 2012; 19 (04) 348-351
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 57 Heyse TJ, Tibesku CO. Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a review. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2010; 130 (12) 1539-1548
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 58 Marmor L. Lateral compartment arthroplasty of the knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1984; (186) 115-121
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 59 Hill PF, Vedi V, Williams A, Iwaki H, Pinskerova V, Freeman MA. Tibiofemoral movement 2: the loaded and unloaded living knee studied by MRI. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2000; 82 (08) 1196-1198
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 60 Scott RD. Lateral unicompartmental replacement: a road less traveled. Orthopedics 2005; 28 (09) 983-984
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 61 Scott RD, Santore RF. Unicondylar unicompartmental replacement for osteoarthritis of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1981; 63 (04) 536-544
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 62 Gunther T, Murray D, Miller R. Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with Oxford meniscal knee. Knee 1996; 3: 33-39
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 63 Weston-Simons JS, Pandit H, Kendrick BJ. , et al. The mid-term outcomes of the Oxford Domed Lateral unicompartmental knee replacement. Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B (01) 59-64
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 64 Pandit H, Jenkins C, Gill HS, Barker K, Dodd CA, Murray DW. Minimally invasive Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee replacement: results of 1000 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011; 93 (02) 198-204
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 65 Wynn Jones H, Chan W, Harrison T, Smith TO, Masonda P, Walton NP. Revision of medial Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement to a total knee replacement: similar to a primary?. Knee 2012; 19 (04) 339-343
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 66 Chou DT, Swamy GN, Lewis JR, Badhe NP. Revision of failed unicompartmental knee replacement to total knee replacement. Knee 2012; 19 (04) 356-359
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 67 Pearse AJ, Hooper GJ, Rothwell A, Frampton C. Survival and functional outcome after revision of a unicompartmental to a total knee replacement: the New Zealand National Joint Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010; 92 (04) 508-512
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 68 Hang JR, Stanford TE, Graves SE, Davidson DC, de Steiger RN, Miller LN. Outcome of revision of unicompartmental knee replacement. Acta Orthop 2010; 81 (01) 95-98
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 69 Järvenpää J, Kettunen J, Miettinen H, Kröger H. The clinical outcome of revision knee replacement after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty: 8-17 years follow-up study of 49 patients. Int Orthop 2010; 34 (05) 649-653
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 70 Goodfellow JW, O'Connor JJ, Murray DW. A critique of revision rate as an outcome measure: re-interpretation of knee joint registry data. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010; 92 (12) 1628-1631
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 71 van den Heever DJ, Scheffer C, Erasmus P, Dillon E. Contact stresses in a patient-specific unicompartmental knee replacement. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2011; 26 (02) 159-166
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 72 Steklov N, Slamin J, Srivastav S, D'Lima D. Unicompartmental knee resurfacing: enlarged tibio-femoral contact area and reduced contact stress using novel patient-derived geometries. Open Biomed Eng J 2010; 4: 85-92
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 73 Koeck FX, Beckmann J, Luring C, Rath B, Grifka J, Basad E. Evaluation of implant position and knee alignment after patient-specific unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee 2011; 18 (05) 294-299
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 74 Konyves A, Willis-Owen CA, Spriggins AJ. The long-term benefit of computer-assisted surgical navigation in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg 2010; 5: 94
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 75 Weber P, Utzschneider S, Sadoghi P. , et al. Navigation in minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty has no advantage in comparison to a conventional minimally invasive implantation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2012; 132 (02) 281-288
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 76 Roche M, O'Loughlin PF, Kendoff D, Musahl V, Pearle AD. Robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: preoperative planning and surgical technique. Am J Orthop 2009; 38 (2, Suppl): 10-15
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 77 Pearle AD, O'Loughlin PF, Kendoff DO. Robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2010; 25 (02) 230-237
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 78 Plate JF, Mofidi A, Mannava S. , et al. Achieving accurate ligament balancing using robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Adv Orthop 2013; 2013: 837167
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 79 Cobb J, Henckel J, Gomes P. , et al. Hands-on robotic unicompartmental knee replacement: a prospective, randomised controlled study of the Acrobot system. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006; 88 (02) 188-197
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 80 Lonner JH, John TK, Conditt MA. Robotic arm-assisted UKA improves tibial component alignment: a pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (01) 141-146
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar