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

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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 11 Springer BD, Scott RD, Thornhill TS. Conversion of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 446 (446) 214-220
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 15 Argenson JN, Parratte S. The unicompartmental knee: design and technical considerations in minimizing wear. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 452 (452) 137-142
• 16 Dalury DF, Pomeroy DL, Gorab RS, Adams MJ. Why are total knee arthroplasties being revised?. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (8, Suppl): 120-121
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 22 Vasso M, Schiavone Panni A. Low-grade periprosthetic knee infection: diagnosis and management. J Orthop Traumatol 2015; 16 (01) 1-7
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 29 Berend KR, George J, Lombardi Jr AV. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty conversion: assuring a primary outcome. Orthopedics 2009; 32 (09)
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 34 Barrett WP, Scott RD. Revision of failed unicondylar unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1987; 69 (09) 1328-1335
• 35 Lai CH, Rand JA. Revision of failed unicompartmental total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1993; (287) 193-201
• 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
• 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 [phone]
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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