Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

When unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) failure occurs, a revision procedure to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is often necessary. We compared the long-term results of this procedure to primary TKA and evaluated whether they are clinically comparable. Twenty-one patients underwent UKA conversion to TKA between 1991 and 2000. The results of these patients were compared to the group of 28 primary TKA patients with the same age, sex and operation time point. The long-term outcomes were evaluated using clinical and radiological analysis. The mean follow-up period of the patients was 10.5 years. The UKA revision patients were more dissatisfied, as measured by the WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) scale (0–100 mm) compared to the primary TKA patients (pain 18.1/7.8; p = 0.014; stiffness 25.7/14.4, p = 0.024; physical function 19.0/14.8, p = 0.62). Two patients were revised twice in the UKA revision group. There was one revision in the primary TKA group (p = 0.39). Improvement in range of motion (ROM) was better in the TKA patients compared to the UKA revision patients (8.2°/–2.6°, p = 0.0001). We suggest that UKA conversion to TKA is associated with poorer clinical outcome as compared to primary TKA.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barret WP, Scott RD (1987) Revision of failed unicondylar arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 69:1328–1335

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell C, Stitt LW (1988) Validation study of WOMAC: A health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 15:1833–1840

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Berger RA, Meneghini RM, Jacobs JJ, Sheinkop MB, Della Valle CJ, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO (2005) Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum of ten years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:999–1006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bray GA (1987) Overweight is risking fate: definition, classification, prevalence and risks. Ann NY Acad Sci 9:14–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Böhm I, Landsiedl F (2000) Revision surgery after failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. A study of 35 cases. J Arthroplasty 15:982–989

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chakrabarty G, Newman JH, Ackroyd CE (1998) Revision of unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee. Clinical and technical considerations. J Arthroplasty 13:191–196

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dudley TE, Gioe TJ, Sinner P, Mehle S (2008) Registry outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revisions. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:1666–1670

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gioe TJ, Novak C, Sinner P, Ma W, Mehle S (2007) Knee arthroplasty in the young patient: survival in a community registry. Clin Orthop Relat Res 464:83–87

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Griffin T, Rowden N, Morgan D, Atkinson R, Woodruff P, Maddern G (2007) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for the treatment of unicompartmental osteoarthritis: A systematic study. ANZ J Surg 77:214–221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Harrysson OL, Robertsson O, Nayfeh JF (2004) Higher cumulative revision rate of knee arthroplasties in younger patients with osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 421:162–168

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Insall J, Walker P (1976) Unicondylar knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 120:83–85

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Koskinen E, Paavolainen P, Eskelinen A, Pulkkinen P, Remes V (2007) Unicondylar knee replacement for primary osteoarthritis. A prospective follow-up study of 1,819 patients from the finnish arthroplasty register. Acta Orthop 78:128–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Koskinen E, Eskelinen A, Paavolainen P, Pulkkinen P, Remes V (2008) 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 79:499–507

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kostuik JP, Schmidt O, Harris WR, Wooldridge C (1975) A study of weight transmission through the knee joint with applied varus and valgus loads. Clin Orthop Relat Res 108:95–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kozinn SC, Scott R (1989) Unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 71:145–150

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Levine WN, Ozuna RM, Scott RD, Thornhill TS (1996) Conversion of failed modern unicompartmental arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 11:797–801

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Luscombe KL, Lim J, Jones PW, White SH (2007) Minimally invasive Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. A note of caution! Int Orthop 31:321–324

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mathias S, Nayak U, Isaacs B (1986) Balance in elderly patients. The “get-up and go” test. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 67:387–389

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Miller M, Benjamin JB, Marson B, Hollstien S (2002) The effect of implant constraint on results of conversion of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 25:1353–1357

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Murray DW, Goodfellow JW, O' Connor JJ (1998) The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. A ten-year survival study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:983–989

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Robertsson O, Borgquist L, Knutson K, Lewold S, Lindgren L (1999) Use of unicompartmental instead of tricompartmental prostheses for unicompartmental arthrosis in the knee is a cost-effective alternative. 15,437 primary tricompartmental prostheses were compared with 10,624 primary medial or lateral unicompartmental prostheses. Acta Orthop Scand 70:170–175

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Saragaglia D, Estour G, Nemer C, Colle PE (2008) Revision of 33 unicompartmental knee prostheses using total knee arthroplasty: strategy and results. Int Orthop. doi:10.1007/s00264-008-0585-0

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Skolnick MD, Bryan RS, Peterson LF (1975) Unicompartmental polycentric knee arthroplasty: description and preliminary results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 112:208–214

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Soohoo NF, Sharifi H, Kominski G, Lieberman JR (2006) Cost-effectiveness analysis of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty as an alternative to total knee arthroplasty for unicompartmental osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:1975–1982

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Stulberg SD, Loan P, Sarin V (2002) Computer-assisted navigation in total knee replacement: results of an initial experience in thirty-five patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84(Suppl 2):90–98

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tabor OW Jr, Tabor OW (1998) Unicompartmental arthroplasty. A long-term follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 13:373–379

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Walton P, Jahromi I, Lewis PL, Dobson PJ, Angel KR, Campbell DG (2006) Patient-perceived outcomes and return to sport and work: TKA versus mini incision unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 19:112–116

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Medicine, Bone and Cartilage Unit, University of Kuopio, Kuopio, Finland

    Jaakko Järvenpää & Heikki Kröger

  2. Departments of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland

    Jukka Kettunen, Hannu Miettinen & Heikki Kröger

Authors
  1. Jaakko Järvenpää
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jukka Kettunen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hannu Miettinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Heikki Kröger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jaakko Järvenpää.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Järvenpää, J., Kettunen, J., Miettinen, H. et al. 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. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 34, 649–653 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-009-0811-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-009-0811-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation