Clin Orthop Surg.  2015 Jun;7(2):199-206. 10.4055/cios.2015.7.2.199.

The Survivorship and Clinical Results of Minimally Invasive Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty at 10-Year Follow-up

• Kim KT
• Lee S
• Kim JH
• Hong SW
• Jung WS
• Shin WS

• KMID: 2164545
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4055/cios.2015.7.2.199

Abstract

BACKGROUND
In this study, we investigated the long-term clinical results and survival rate of minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) by collecting cases that had been implanted more than 10 years ago.
METHODS
One hundred and twenty-eight patients (166 cases) who underwent Oxford phase 3 medial UKA using the minimally invasive surgery from January 2002 to December 2002 were selected. The mean age of the patients at the time of surgery was 61 years, and the duration of the follow-up was minimum 10 years. Clinical and radiographic assessments were performed using the Knee Society clinical rating system, and the survival analysis was done by the Kaplan-Meier method with 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
The mean Knee Society knee and function scores improved significantly from 53.8 points (range, 25 to 70 points) and 56.1 points (range, 35 to 80 points) preoperatively to 85.4 points (range, 58 to 100 points) and 80.5 points (range, 50 to 100 points) at 10-year follow-up, respectively (p < 0.001). Failures following the UKA occurred in 16 cases (9.6%), and the mean time of the occurrence of the failure was 6.2 years after the surgery. The 10-year survival rate was 90.5% (95% CI, 85.9 to 95.0) when failure was defined as all the reoperations, whereas the 10-year survival rate was 93.4% (95% CI, 89.6 to 97.1) when the cases in which only revision total knee arthroplasty was defined as failure.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study show outstanding functions of the knee joint and satisfactory 10-year survival rate after minimally invasive UKA. Therefore, minimally invasive UKA could be a useful method in the treatment of osteoarthritis in one compartment of knee joint.

Keyword

Arthroplasty; Replacement; Knee; Minimally invasive; Survival rate

MeSH Terms

Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee/*methods
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
*Knee Prosthesis
Male
Middle Aged
*Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures
Prospective Studies
*Prosthesis Failure
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 (A, B) Preoperative radiographs of a 75-year-old woman show osteoarthritis of the medial compartment in the left knee. (C, D) The last follow-up radiographs show findings at more than 10 years after minimally invasive Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

• 

  Fig. 2 Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis curve showing 10-year survival rate of minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty of 90.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85.9 to 95.0) with failure for any reason as the end point (group A) and 93.4% (95% CI, 89.6 to 97.1) with the revision of total knee arthroplasty as the end point (group B).

Reference

1. Egidy CC, Sherman SL, Macdessi SJ, Cross MB, Windsor RE. Long-term survivorship of a unicondylar knee replacement: a case report. Knee. 2012; 19(6):944–947.

2. Panni AS, Vasso M, Cerciello S, Felici A. Unicompartmental knee replacement provides early clinical and functional improvement stabilizing over time. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012; 20(3):579–585.

3. Saccomanni B. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a review of literature. Clin Rheumatol. 2010; 29(4):339–346.

4. O'Donnell T, Neil MJ. The Repicci II® unicondylar knee arthroplasty: 9-year survivorship and function. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010; 468(11):3094–3102.

5. O'Rourke MR, Gardner JJ, Callaghan JJ, et al. The John Insall Award: unicompartmental knee replacement: a minimum twenty-one-year followup, end-result study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005; 440:27–37.

6. 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(1):61–68.

7. Munk S, Dalsgaard J, Bjerggaard K, Andersen I, Hansen TB, Kehlet H. Early recovery after fast-track Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: 35 patients with minimal invasive surgery. Acta Orthop. 2012; 83(1):41–45.

8. 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(2):198–204.

9. Repicci JA, Eberle RW. Minimally invasive surgical technique for unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J South Orthop Assoc. 1999; 8(1):20–27.

10. Biswal S, Brighton RW. Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cemented, fixed-bearing prosthesis using minimally invasive surgery. J Arthroplasty. 2010; 25(5):721–727.

11. Konyves A, Willis-Owen CA, Spriggins AJ. The long-term benefit of computer-assisted surgical navigation in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res. 2010; 5(1):94.

12. Kort NP, van Raay JJ, Cheung J, Jolink C, Deutman R. Analysis of Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement using the minimally invasive technique in patients aged 60 and above: an independent prospective series. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2007; 15(11):1331–1334.

13. Lim HC, Bae JH, Song SH, Kim SJ. Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee replacement in Korean patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012; 94(8):1071–1076.

14. Lisowski LA, van den Bekerom MP, Pilot P, van Dijk CN, Lisowski AE. Oxford Phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: medium-term results of a minimally invasive surgical procedure. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011; 19(2):277–284.

15. 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(1):54–60.

16. Kim KT, Lee S, Park HS, Cho KH, Kim KS. A prospective analysis of Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2007; 30:5 Suppl. 15–18.

17. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989; (248):13–14.

18. Rea P, Short A, Pandit H, et al. Radiolucency and migration after Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2007; 30:5 Suppl. 24–27.

19. Borjesson M, Weidenhielm L, Mattsson E, Olsson E. Gait and clinical measurements in patients with knee osteoarthritis after surgery: a prospective 5-year follow-up study. Knee. 2005; 12(2):121–127.

20. Murray DW, Goodfellow JW, O'Connor JJ. The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a ten-year survival study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998; 80(6):983–989.

21. Berger RA, Nedeff DD, Barden RM, et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: clinical experience at 6- to 10-year followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999; (367):50–60.

22. Whiteside LA. Making your next unicompartmental knee arthroplasty last: three keys to success. J Arthroplasty. 2005; 20(4):Suppl 2. 2–3.

23. Lyons MC, MacDonald SJ, Somerville LE, Naudie DD, Mc-Calden RW. Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty database analysis: is there a winner? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012; 470(1):84–90.

24. W-Dahl A, Robertsson O, Lidgren L, Miller L, Davidson D, Graves S. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients aged less than 65. Acta Orthop. 2010; 81(1):90–94.

25. Koskinen E, Paavolainen P, Eskelinen A, Pulkkinen P, Remes V. Unicondylar knee replacement for primary osteoarthritis: a prospective follow-up study of 1,819 patients from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop. 2007; 78(1):128–135.

26. Epinette JA, Brunschweiler B, Mertl P, Mole D, Cazenave A;. 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.

27. Kozinn SC, Scott R. Unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989; 71(1):145–150.

28. Goodfellow J, O'Connor J, Dodd C, Murray D. Postoperative management and radiography. In : Goodfellow J, O'Connor J, Dodd C, Murray D, editors. Unicompartmental arthroplasty with the Oxford knee. Oxford: Goodfellow;2011. p. 117–128.