Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Joints 2017; 05(01): 044-050
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1601414
Review Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Modes of Failure and Conversion to Total Knee Arthroplasty

Michele Vasso
1   Department of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Molise, Campobasso, Italy
,
Katia Corona
1   Department of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Molise, Campobasso, Italy
,
Rocco D'Apolito
1   Department of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Molise, Campobasso, Italy
,
Giuseppe Mazzitelli
1   Department of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Molise, Campobasso, Italy
,
Alfredo Schiavone Panni
2   Multidisciplinary Department of Medical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, University Campana Luigi Vanvitelli, Caserta, Italy
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
05 June 2017 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Despite the excellent success rates of the modern unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), results of knee replacement registries still shows a relatively high revision and failure rate for UKA, especially when compared with traditional total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Bearing dislocation continues to be advocated as the predominant mechanism of failure in mobile UKA, whereas polyethylene wear and aseptic loosening remains the main cause of failure of fixed UKA. Degeneration of the unreplaced compartments has been reported in both mobile and fixed designs. When the revision is required, most of failed UKAs are converted to TKAs. Surgical challenges of the UKA revision, and outcomes of UKA converted to TKA are still debated in literature.

Keywords

unicompartmental knee arthroplasty - polyethylene - loosening - bearing dislocation - revision - conversion
 

  • References

  • 1 Foran JR, Brown NM, Della Valle CJ, Berger RA, Galante JO. Long-term survivorship and failure modes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471 (01) 102-108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bergeson AG, Berend KR, Lombardi Jr AV, Hurst JM, Morris MJ, Sneller MA. Medial mobile bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: early survivorship and analysis of failures in 1000 consecutive cases. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (9, Suppl): 172-175
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Vasso M, Del Regno C, D'Amelio A, Viggiano D, Corona K, Schiavone Panni A. Minor varus alignment provides better results than neutral alignment in medial UKA. Knee 2015; 22 (02) 117-121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Koshino T, Sato K, Umemoto Y, Akamatsu Y, Kumagai K, Saito T. Clinical results of unicompartmental arthroplasty for knee osteoarthritis using a tibial component with screw fixation. Int Orthop 2015; 39 (06) 1085-1091
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Schlueter-Brust K, Kugland K, Stein G. , et al. Ten year survivorship after cemented and uncemented medial Uniglide® unicompartmental knee arthroplasties. Knee 2014; 21 (05) 964-970
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Vasso M, Del Regno C, Perisano C, D'Amelio A, Corona K, Schiavone Panni A. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is effective: ten year results. Int Orthop 2015; 39 (12) 2341-2346
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Yoshida K, Tada M, Yoshida H, Takei S, Fukuoka S, Nakamura H. Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in Japan--clinical results in greater than one thousand cases over ten years. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (9, Suppl): 168-171
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Niinimäki TT, Murray DW, Partanen J, Pajala A, Leppilahti JI. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasties implanted for osteoarthritis with partial loss of joint space have high re-operation rates. Knee 2011; 18 (06) 432-435
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kim KT, Lee S, Lee JI, Kim JW. Analysis and treatment of complications after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res 2016; 28 (01) 46-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Clark M, Campbell DG, Kiss G, Dobson PJ, Lewis PL. Reintervention after mobile-bearing Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (02) 576-580
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Springer BD, Scott RD, Thornhill TS. Conversion of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 446 (446) 214-220
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 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
  • 13 Kim SJ, Postigo R, Koo S, Kim JH. Causes of revision following Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2014; 22 (08) 1895-1901
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Argenson JN, Parratte S. The unicompartmental knee: design and technical considerations in minimizing wear. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 452 (452) 137-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Dalury DF, Pomeroy DL, Gorab RS, Adams MJ. Why are total knee arthroplasties being revised?. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (8, Suppl): 120-121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Collier MB, Eickmann TH, Sukezaki F, McAuley JP, Engh GA. Patient, implant, and alignment factors associated with revision of medial compartment unicondylar arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2006; 21 (06) (Suppl. 02) 108-115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Pandit H, Hamilton TW, Jenkins C, Mellon SJ, Dodd CA, Murray DW. The clinical outcome of minimally invasive Phase 3 Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a 15-year follow-up of 1000 UKAs. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B (11) 1493-1500
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Labruyère C, Zeller V, Lhotellier L. , et al. Chronic infection of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: one-stage conversion to total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2015; 101 (05) 553-557
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Vasso M, Schiavone Panni A, De Martino I, Gasparini G. Prosthetic knee infection by resistant bacteria: the worst-case scenario. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2016; 24 (10) 3140-3146
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Vasso M, Schiavone Panni A. Low-grade periprosthetic knee infection: diagnosis and management. J Orthop Traumatol 2015; 16 (01) 1-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Ten Brinke B, de Haan LJ, Koenraadt KL, van Geenen RC. Medial femoral condyle fracture as an intraoperative complication of Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2016; 24 (10) 3191-3193
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Seeger JB, Jaeger S, Röhner E, Dierkes H, Wassilew G, Clarius M. Treatment of periprosthetic tibial plateau fractures in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: plates versus cannulated screws. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2013; 133 (02) 253-257
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Pandit H, Jenkins C, Barker K, Dodd CA, Murray DW. The Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement using a minimally-invasive approach. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006; 88 (01) 54-60
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Baker PN, Petheram T, Avery PJ, Gregg PJ, Deehan DJ. Revision for unexplained pain following unicompartmental and total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94 (17) e126 . Doi: 10.2106/JBJS.K.00791
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Ko YB, Gujarathi MR, Oh KJ. Outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of comparative studies between fixed and mobile bearings focusing on complications. Knee Surg Relat Res 2015; 27 (03) 141-148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Peersman G, Stuyts B, Vandenlangenbergh T, Cartier P, Fennema P. Fixed- versus mobile-bearing UKA: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2015; 23 (11) 3296-3305
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Berend KR, George J, Lombardi Jr AV. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty conversion: assuring a primary outcome. Orthopedics 2009; 32 (09) DOI: 10.3928/01477447-20090728-32.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Khan Z, Nawaz SZ, Kahane S, Esler C, Chatterji U. Conversion of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: the challenges and need for augments. Acta Orthop Belg 2013; 79 (06) 699-705
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Epinette JA, Brunschweiler B, Mertl P, Mole D, Cazenave A. ; French Society for Hip and Knee. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty modes of failure: wear is not the main reason for failure: a multicentre study of 418 failed knees. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2012; 98 (6, Suppl) S124-S130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Lunebourg A, Parratte S, Ollivier M, Abdel MP, Argenson JN. Are revisions of unicompartmental knee arthroplasties more like a primary or revision TKA?. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (11) 1985-1989
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Barrett WP, Scott RD. Revision of failed unicondylar unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1987; 69 (09) 1328-1335
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Lai CH, Rand JA. Revision of failed unicompartmental total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1993; (287) 193-201
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Leta TH, Lygre SH, Skredderstuen A. , et al. Outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty after aseptic revision to total knee arthroplasty: a comparative study of 768 TKAs and 578 UKAs revised to TKAs from the Norwegian arthroplasty register (1994 to 2011). J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016; 98 (06) 431-440
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Kerens B, Boonen B, Schotanus MGM, Lacroix H, Emans PJ, Kort NP. Revision from unicompartmental to total knee replacement: the clinical outcome depends on reason for revision. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B (09) 1204-1208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Johnson S, Jones P, Newman JH. The survivorship and results of total knee replacements converted from unicompartmental knee replacements. Knee 2007; 14 (02) 154-157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Châtain F, Richard A, Deschamps G, Chambat P, Neyret P. Revision total knee arthroplasty after unicompartmental femorotibial prosthesis: 54 cases [in French]. Rev Chir Orthop Repar Appar Mot 2004; 90 (01) 49-57
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Sierra RJ, Kassel CA, Wetters NG, Berend KR, Della Valle CJ, Lombardi AV. Revision of unicompartmental arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: not always a slam dunk!. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (8, Suppl): 128-132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Craik JD, El Shafie SA, Singh VK, Twyman RS. Revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (04) 592-594
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Jonas SC, Shah R, Mitra A, Deo SD. 5-Year cost/benefit analysis of revision of failed unicompartmental knee replacements (UKRs); not “just” a primary total knee replacement (TKR). Knee 2014; 21 (04) 840-842
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Cankaya D, Della Valle CJ. Blood loss and transfusion rates in the revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty are similar to those of primary total knee arthroplasty but are lower compared with the revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (01) 339-341
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar