Microporous titanium and hydroxyapatite improve fixation of the tibial wall in unicompartmental knee replacement.

PURPOSE: Cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement (OUKR) is associated with less pain than cemented OUKR 5 years postoperatively. This may be due to improved fixation at the tibial wall, which transmits tension and reduces stress in the bone below the tibial component. This study compares tibial wall fixation with three different types of fixation: cemented, cementless with hydroxyapatite (HA) and cementless with a microporous titanium coat and HA (HA + MPC). METHODS: Three consecutive cohorts were identified (n = 221 cemented in 2005-2007, n = 118 HA in 2014-2015, n = 125 HA + MPC in 2016-2017). Analysis was performed on anterior-posterior radiographs aligned on the tibial component taken 1-2 years postoperatively. Aligned radiographs are needed to see narrow radiolucencies adjacent to the wall. Alignment was assessed with rotation ratio (RR = wall width/internal wall height). Perfect RR is 0.3, and a maximum threshold of 0.5 was used. Quality of fixation to the wall was assessed with fixation ratio (FR = bone wall contact height/total wall height). Notable radiographic features at the tibial wall were also recorded. RESULTS: A total of 33 knees with cement, 37 knees with cementless with HA and 57 knees cementless with HA + MPC had adequately aligned radiographs. Fixation was significantly better with HA compared with cement (55% vs. 25%, p = 0.0016). The microporous coat further improved fixation (81% vs. 55%, p < 0.0001). FR > 80% was achieved in 3% of the cemented implants, 32% of HA and 68% of HA + MPC. In cementless cohorts, features suggestive of a layer of bone that had delaminated from the wall were seen in 8 (22%) HA and 3 (5%) HA + MPC knees. CONCLUSION: Radiographic tibial wall fixation in OUKR is poor with cement. It improves with an HA coating and improves further with an intermediary MPC. Improved tibial wall fixation may explain the lower levels of pain observed with cementless rather than cemented fixation described in the literature, but further clinical correlation is needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Polyethylene bearing wear is comparable for cemented and cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacements: Ten-year results of a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: There is concern that using cementless components may increase polyethylene wear of the Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement (OUKR). Therefore, this study aimed to measure bearing wear at 10 years in patients from a randomized trial comparing Phase 3 cemented and cementless OUKRs and to investigate factors that may affect wear. It was hypothesized that there would be no difference in wear rate between cemented and cementless OUKRs. METHODS: Bearing thickness was determined using radiostereometric analysis at postoperative, 3-month, 6-month, 1-year, 2-year, 5-year and 10-year timepoints. As creep occurs early, wear rate was calculated using linear regression between 6 months and 10 years for 39 knees (20 cemented, 19 cementless). Associations between wear and implant, surgical and patient factors were analysed. RESULTS: The linear wear rate of the Phase 3 OUKR was 0.06 mm/year with no significant difference (p = 0.18) between cemented (0.054 mm/year) and cementless (0.063 mm/year) implants. Age, Oxford Knee Score, component size and bearing thickness had no correlation with wear. A body mass index ≥ 30 was associated with a significantly lower wear rate (p = 0.007) as was having ≥80% femoral component contact area on the bearing (p = 0.003). Bearings positioned ≥1.5 mm from the tibial wall had a significantly higher wear rate (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: At 10 years, the Phase 3 OUKR linear wear rate is low and not associated with the fixation method. To minimize the risk of wear-related bearing fracture in the very long-term surgeons should consider using 4 mm bearings in very young active patients and ensure that components are appropriately positioned, which is facilitated by the current instrumentation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

A Comparison of the Periprosthetic Fracture Rate of Cemented and Cementless Mobile Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasties: An Analysis of Data From the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic fractures are rare but serious complications of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Although cementless UKA has a lower risk of loosening than cemented, there are concerns that tibial fracture risk may be higher given the reliance on interference fit for primary stability. The risk of fracture and the effect of surgical fixation are currently unknown. We compared the periprosthetic fracture rate following cemented and cementless UKA surgery. METHODS: A total of 14,122 medial mobile-bearing UKAs (7,061 cemented and 7,061 cementless) from the National Joint Registry and Hospital Episodes Statistics database were propensity score-matched. Cumulative fracture rates were calculated and Cox regressions were used to compare fixation groups. RESULTS: The three-month periprosthetic fracture rates were similar (P = .80), being 0.10% in the cemented group and 0.11% in the cementless group. The fracture rates were highest during the first three months postoperatively, but then decreased and remained constant between one and 10 years after surgery. The one-year cumulative fracture rates were 0.2% (confidence interval [CI]: 0.1 to 0.3) for cemented and 0.2% (CI: 0.1 to 0.3) for cementless cases. The 10-year cumulative fracture rates were 0.8% (CI: 0.2 to 1.3) and 0.8% (CI: 0.3 to 1.3), respectively. The hazard ratio during the whole study period was 1.06 (CI: 0.64 to 1.77; P = .79). CONCLUSIONS: The periprosthetic fracture rate following mobile bearing UKA surgery is low, being about 1% at 10 years. There were no significant differences in fracture rates between cemented and cementless implants after matching. We surmise that surgeons are aware of the higher theoretical risk of early fracture with cementless components and take care with tibial preparation. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: III.

Impact of age on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is an effective treatment for late knee osteoarthritis (OA). Young age (< 60 years) has been associated with worse outcomes. The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to study the effect of age on UKA outcomes. METHODS: The primary objective was to compare the UKA revision rate in young patients with that of old patients, using the age thresholds of 60 and 55 years. Secondary objectives were patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and implant design. Five databases were searched in December 2021 for original comparative studies with a minimum of 1-year follow-up. No restrictions were placed on the type of UKA prosthesis. RESULTS: A total of 11 observational studies with 6130 knees were included. A mean MINORS score of 19 was assigned to the review. The mean age of patients was 64 years, with average follow-up of 7.5 ± 2.98 years. There was no significant difference in revision rate, incident or PROMs between young and old patients in the analysis for each age threshold. Further sub-analysis adjusting for implant type in mobile- and fixed-bearing prostheses also showed similar results between those above and under 60 and 55 years. CONCLUSION: Young age was not associated with a higher revision rate or lower functional scores. Thus, this review provides evidence that age alone is not a contraindication to UKA, but the surgical choice must be based on several elements, and this finding should be applied in context, given the binary division and heterogeneity of patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Less pain reported 5 years after cementless compared to cemented unicompartmental knee replacement: an analysis of pain, neuropathy, and co-morbidity scores.

PURPOSE: To compare patient-reported pain scores and assess the influence of neuropathy and co-morbidity, on knee pain following cemented and cementless medial unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) 5 years after surgery. METHOD: In this longitudinal study, 262 cemented and 262 cementless Oxford UKR performed for the same indications and with the same techniques were recruited. Patients were reviewed at five years, evaluating patient-reported pain and association with clinical outcomes. Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain (ICOAP), PainDETECT (PD), Charnley score, Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and American Knee Society Score (AKSS) were compared. RESULTS: In both cohorts, intermittent pain was more common than constant pain (47% vs 21%). Cementless knees reported significantly less pain than cemented (ICOAP-Total 5/100 vs 11/100, p < 0.0001). A greater proportion of cementless knees experienced no pain at all (ICOAP = 0/100, 61% vs 43%, p < 0.0001) and 75% fewer experienced severe or extreme pain. Pain sub-scores in PD, OKS and AKSS follow this trend. Pain was unlikely to be neuropathic (PD positive: 5.26%), but patients reporting high levels of 'strongest' pain were three times more likely to be neuropathic. Patients with co-morbidities (Charnley C) experienced greater pain than those without (Charnley A+B) across all knee-specific scores, despite scores being knee specific. CONCLUSION: Both cemented and cementless UKR in this study had substantially less pain than that reported in literature following TKR. Cementless UKR had significantly less pain than cemented UKR in all scores. Two-thirds of patients with a cementless UKR had no pain at all at 5 years, and pain experienced was most likely to be mild and intermittent with no patients in severe or extreme pain. Patients with cementless UKR that had higher levels of pain were more likely to have co-morbidity or evidence or neuropathic pain. It is unclear why cementless UKR have less pain than cemented; further study is necessary.

Fixed lateral unicompartmental knee replacement is a reliable treatment for lateral compartment osteoarthritis after mobile-bearing medial unicompartmental replacement.

PURPOSE: Lateral osteoarthritis following medial unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is usually treated with total knee replacement, however, lateral UKR is a less invasive option that preserves a well-functioning medial UKR. This study aimed to determine the 5-year outcome of the cemented Fixed Lateral Oxford UKR (FLO) when used for the treatment of severe lateral disease after medial Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement. METHODS: Forty-four knees with lateral bone-on-bone osteoarthritis (n = 43) and avascular necrosis (n = 1) treated with the FLO following medial Oxford UKR were followed up prospectively. The Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and Tegner Activity Score (TAS) were collected pre- and post-operatively. Life-table analysis was used to determine survival rates. RESULTS: The mean patient age at the time of FLO surgery was 74.4 years with a mean time of 12.1 years between the primary medial UKR and the conversion to a bi-UKR with a FLO. Mean follow-up of the FLO was 3.5 years. After FLO no intra-operative or medical complications, re-admissions, or mortality occurred. There was one reoperation in which a bearing was exchanged for a medial bearing dislocation. There were no revisions of the FLO, so the FLO survival rate at 5 years was 100% (24 at risk). The mean pre-operative OKS was 22, which significantly (p < 0.0001) improved to a mean of 42, 42, and 40 at 1, 2, and 5 years, respectively. The median TAS had a non-significant improvement from 2.5 (Range 0-8) pre-operatively to 2 (Range 1-6) at 5 years postoperatively. CONCLUSION: The FLO is a reliable treatment for lateral osteoarthritis following medial UKR. At 5 years there was a 100% survival of the FLO with a mean OKS of 40. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, Prospective Case Series.

The Effect of Age on the Relative Outcomes of Cemented and Cementless Mobile-Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty, Based on Data From National Databases.

BACKGROUND: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is an effective treatment for medial compartment arthritis. A challenge is that patients requiring knee arthroplasty are becoming younger. It is currently unknown what the relative performances of cemented and cementless UKAs are, in different age groups. METHODS: A total of 12,882 cemented and cementless UKAs from the National Joint Registry and Hospital Episodes Statistics databases were matched on patient and surgical factors. Patients were stratified into 3 groups: (1) <60 years; (2) 60-69 years; and (3) ≥70 years. Revision and reoperation rates were compared using Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: The 10-year implant survival for the matched cemented and cementless UKAs for (1) <60 years were 81.4% (CI 73.6-87.0) and 86.7% (CI 80.7-90.9) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.73, CI 0.56-0.94, P = .02); (2) for 60-69 years were 91.8% (CI 88.9-94.0) and 94.5% (CI 92.9-95.7) (HR 0.90, CI 0.67-1.22, P = .51); and (3) ≥70 years were 93.5% (CI 91.1-95.3) and 94.2% (CI 92.0-95.8) (HR 1.0, CI 0.71-1.40, P = .99). The same trend was observed for reoperations. In the <60 years and 60-69 years groups there were significantly fewer revisions for aseptic loosening in the cementless group (0.5% versus 1.6% [P < .001] and 0.4% versus 1.3% [P = .002], respectively). CONCLUSION: Younger ages were associated with higher revision rates in both cemented and cementless UKA groups. Cementless fixation has reduced long-term revision rates compared to cemented fixation in the <60 years group with aseptic loosening rates 3 times lower. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

The Influence of Surgeon Caseload and Usage on the Long-Term Outcomes of Mobile-Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: An Analysis of Data From the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man.

BACKGROUND: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) revision rates are variable and known to be influenced by a surgeon's caseload (number of UKAs performed annually) and usage (UKA as a proportion of overall knee arthroplasty practice). It is not known which is more important. We explored the influence of caseload and usage on cemented and cementless UKA. METHODS: A total of 34,277 medial Oxford UKAs (23,707 cemented and 10,570 cementless) from the National Joint Registry were analyzed. UKAs were subdivided by the following: (1) surgeon caseload, into low (<10 UKAs/y) and high (≥10 UKAs/y) categories; and (2) usage, into low (<20%) and high (≥20%) categories. The 10-year revision rates were compared. RESULTS: The 10-year survival of the low-caseload/low-usage cemented and cementless UKA was 82.8% (CI 81.6-83.9) and 86.2% (CI 72.1-93.4), respectively. The 10-year survival of the high-caseload/high-usage cemented and cementless UKA was 90.0% (CI 89.2-90.6) and 93.3% (CI 91.3-94.8), respectively. For cemented UKA, the high-caseload/high-usage group had lower revision rates (hazard ratio [HR] 0.57, CI 0.52-0.63, P < .001) compared to the low-caseload/low-usage group. The high-caseload/low-usage (HR 0.74, CI 0.66-0.83, P < .001) and the low-caseload/high-usage (HR 0.86, CI 0.74-0.99, P = .04) groups also had lower revision rates than the low-caseload/low-usage group. CONCLUSION: Mobile-bearing UKA revision rates improve with both increasing surgeon UKA caseload and usage. Surgeons using cemented UKA who have usage ≥20% and caseload ≥10/year had a 10-year survival of 90%. Higher survivorship was associated with higher caseload, higher usage, and cementless fixation. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: III.

A Comparison of the Periprosthetic Fracture Rate of Cemented and Cementless Total Knee Arthroplasties: An Analysis of Data From the National Joint Registry.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic fractures are serious complications of knee arthroplasty often requiring complex surgery. There is concern of increased periprosthetic fracture risk with cementless components given the reliance on interference fit for primary stability. It is unknown how the periprosthetic fracture risk compares between cemented and cementless total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). METHODS: A total of 22,477 cemented and 22,477 cementless TKAs from the National Joint Registry and Hospital Episodes Statistics database were propensity score matched on patient and surgical factors. Cumulative periprosthetic fracture rates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier analyses and compared with Cox regressions. Subgroup analyses were performed in different age, body mass index, and sex groups. RESULTS: The 3-month fracture rate in the cemented and cementless TKA groups were 0.02% and 0.04%, respectively. At 10 years, the cumulative fracture rate after cemented TKA was 1.2%, and after cementless was 1.4%. During the study period, there were no significant differences in fracture rates between cemented and cementless TKAs with a hazards ratio 1.14 (confidence interval 0.94 to 1.37, P = .20) at 10 years postoperatively. There were no significant differences in fracture rates between fixation types on subgroup analyses of sex, body mass index, and age groups. Female sex was a risk factor for fracture in both cemented (odds ratio 2.35, P < .001) and cementless TKAs (odds ratio 2.97, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The periprosthetic fracture rates following cemented and cementless TKA surgery are low being approximately 1.2% and 1.4%, respectively at 10 years. There were no significant differences in periprosthetic fracture rates requiring readmission between cemented and cementless TKAs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

A Matched Comparison of Long-Term Outcomes of Total and Unicompartmental Knee Replacements in Different Ages Based on National Databases: Analysis of Data From the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man.

BACKGROUND: The 2 main treatment options for end-stage single compartment knee arthritis are unicompartmental (UKR) or total knee replacement (TKR). We compared the long-term outcomes in different age groups. METHODS: In total, 54,215 UKRs and 54,215 TKRs from the National Joint Registry and Hospital Episode Statistics database were propensity score matched and Kaplan-Meier and regression analysis used to compare revision, reoperation, mortality, and 3-month complications. RESULTS: UKR had higher 10-year revision rates (12% vs 5%, hazard ratio [HR] 2.31, P < .001) and 10-year reoperation rates (25% vs 21%, HR 1.12, P < .001). UKR had lower 10-year mortality rates (13.6% vs 15.5%, HR 0.86, P < .001). UKR had lower rates of medical (P < .001) and procedure related (P < .001) complications and deaths (HR 0.61, P = .02). If 100 patients had a UKR instead of a TKR then over 10 years, if they were <55 years old there would be 7 more reoperations and 1 less death; if they were 55-64 years old there would be 6 more reoperations and 2 more deaths; if they were 65-74 years old there would be 4 more reoperations and 2 less deaths; and if they were ≥75 years old there would be 3 more reoperations and 4 less deaths. CONCLUSION: UKR has higher revision and slightly higher reoperation rates but lower mortality rates than matched TKR. The decision to do a UKR should, in part, be based on the balance of these risks, which are influenced by patient age. In the elderly group (>75 years) the data suggests that UKR compared to TKR has a greater absolute reduction in mortality than the increase in reoperation rate. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: III.

A matched comparison of cementless unicompartmental and total knee replacement outcomes based on the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The main treatments for severe medial compartment knee arthritis are unicompartmental (UKR) and total knee replacement (TKR). UKRs have higher revision rates, particularly for aseptic loosening, therefore the cementless version was introduced. We compared the outcomes of matched cementless UKRs and TKRs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The National Joint Registry was linked to the English Hospital Episode Statistics and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) databases. 10,552 cementless UKRs and 10,552 TKRs were propensity matched and regression analysis used to compare revision/reoperation risks. 6-month PROMs were compared. UKR results were stratified by surgeon caseload into low- (< 10 UKRs/year), medium- (10 to < 30 UKRs/year), and high-volume (≥ 30 UKRs/year). RESULTS: 8-year cementless UKR revision survival for the 3 respective caseloads were 90% (95% CI 87-93), 93% (CI 91-95), and 96% (CI 94-97). 8-year reoperation survivals were 76% (CI 71-80), 81% (CI 78-85), and 84% (CI 82-86) respectively. For TKR the 8-year implant survivals for revision and reoperation were 96% (CI 95-97) and 81% (CI 80-83). The HRs for the 3 caseload groups compared with TKR for revision were 2.0 (CI 1.3-2.9), 2.0 (CI 1.6-2.7), and 1.0 (CI 0.8-1.3) and for reoperation were 1.2 (CI 1.0-1.4), 0.9 (CI 0.8-1.0), and 0.6 (CI 0.5-0.7). 6-month Oxford Knee Score (OKS) (39 vs. 37) and EQ-5D (0.80 vs. 0.77) were higher (p < 0.001) for the cementless UKR. INTERPRETATION: Cementless UKRs have higher revision and reoperation rates than TKR for low-volume UKR surgeons, similar reoperation but higher revision rates for mid-volume surgeons, and lower reoperation and similar revision rates for high-volume surgeons. Cementless UKR also had better PROMs.

A matched comparison of the patient-reported outcome measures of cemented and cementless total knee replacements, based on the National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Isle of Man and England's National PROM collection programme.

Background and purpose - Total knee replacement (TKR) can be implanted with or without bone cement. It is currently unknown how the functional outcomes compare. Therefore, we compared the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) of both fixation methods. Patients and methods - We performed a propensitymatched comparison of 14,404 TKRs (7,202 cemented and 7,202 cementless) enrolled in the National Joint Registry and the English National PROMs collection programme. Subgroup analyses were performed in different age groups (1) < 55 years; (2) 55-64 years; (3) 65-74 years; (4) ≥ 75 years. Results - The 6-month postoperative Oxford Knee Score (OKS) was significantly (p < 0.001) higher for cemented TKR (35, SD 9.7) than cementless TKR (34, SD 9.9). The OKS was also significantly higher for the cemented TKR in all age groups, except the 55-64-year group. A significantly higher proportion of cemented TKRs had an excellent OKS (≥ 41) compared with cementless (32% vs. 28%, p < 0.001) and a lower proportion of poor (< 27) scores (19% vs. 22%, p = 0.001). This was also observed for all age subgroups. There were no significant differences in EQ-5D points gained postoperatively between the groups respectively (0.31 vs. 0.30, p = 0.1). Interpretation - Cemented TKRs had a greater proportion of excellent OKS scores and lower proportion of poor scores both overall and across all age groups. However, the absolute differences are small and below the minimally clinically important difference, making both fixation types acceptable. Currently the vast majority of TKRs are cemented and the results from this study suggest that this is appropriate.

The effect of obesity on revision rate in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The number of patients with knee osteoarthritis, the proportion that is obese and the number undergoing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) are all increasing. The primary aim of this systematic review was to determine the effects of obesity on outcomes in UKA. A systematic review was performed using PRISMA guidelines and the primary outcome was revision rate per 100 observed component years, with a BMI of ≥ 30 used to define obesity. The MINORS criteria and OCEBM criteria were used to assess risk of bias and level of evidence, respectively. 9 studies were included in the analysis. In total there were 4621 knees that underwent UKA. The mean age in included studies was reported to be 63 years (mean range 59.5-72 years old)) and range of follow up was 2-18 years. Four studies were OCEBM level 2b and the average MINORS score was 13. The mean revision rate in obese patients (BMI > 30) was 0.33% pa (95% CI - 3.16 to 2.5) higher than in non-obese patients, however this was not statistically significant (p = 0.82). This meta-analysis concludes that there is no significant difference in outcomes between obese and non-obese patients undergoing UKA. There is currently no evidence that obesity should be considered a definite contraindication to UKA. Further studies are needed to increase the numbers in meta-analysis to explore activity levels, surgeon's operative data, implant design and perioperative complications and revision in more depth.Level of evidence Level III.

Low polyethylene creep and wear following mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee replacement.

PURPOSE: The Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) has a fully congruent mobile bearing to minimise wear. However, with younger higher demand patients, wear remains a concern. The aim of this study was to quantify the wear rate of Phase 3 Oxford UKR bearings over the course of 5 years and to identify the factors that influence it. METHODS: 40 medial Oxford UKRs recruited for a randomised study of cemented and cementless fixation were studied with Radiostereometric analysis (RSA) at 1 week, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 5 years post-operatively and bearing thickness was calculated. Penetration, defined as the change in thickness compared to the 1-week measurement, was determined. Creep (early penetration) and wear (late penetration at a constant rate) were calculated. The influence of demographic factors, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Tegner score, fixation and bearing overhang (determined by RSA) on wear was analysed. RESULTS: After 6 months the penetration rate was constant, indicating that wear alone was occurring. The wear rate was 0.07 mm/year (SD 0.03). The creep was 0.06 mm with about 95% occurring during the first 3 months. There was no significant relationship between fixation (cemented/cementless), age, component size, OKS and Tegner score with wear rate. Increasing BMI was associated with decreasing wear (p = 0.042). 37/40 bearings overhung the tibia to some extent and 23/40 overhung the tibia medially. An increase in the area of overhang (p = 0.036), amount of medial overhang (p = 0.028) and distance between the bearing and tibial wall (p = 0.019) were associated with increased wear. Bearings that did not overhang (0.06 mm/year) had less wear (p = 0.025) than those that did (0.08 mm/year). There was no relationship (p = 0.6) between the femoral contact area and wear. CONCLUSION: During the first three to six months after implantation, the bearing becomes 0.06 mm thinner due to creep. The combined wear rate of the upper and lower surfaces of the bearing is constant (0.07 mm/year). The wear is lower if the bearing does not overhang the tibia so surgeons should aim for the bearing to be close to the tibial wall. The orientation of the femoral component does not influence wear. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective Study, Level III.

The Mid- to Long-Term Outcomes of the Lateral Domed Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacement: An Analysis From the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man.

BACKGROUND: Lateral unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is an alternative to total knee replacement for isolated lateral unicompartmental knee arthritis. The geometry and mechanics of the lateral compartment differ to the medial compartment with the Lateral Domed Oxford UKR designed to address this. We used the National Joint Registry (NJR) data to report the mid- to long-term outcomes of this device. METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational study using NJR data on 992 Lateral Domed Oxford UKRs implanted between 1st January 2005 and 31st December 2017. Outcomes of interest were implant survival and revision indications. RESULTS: The 10 year cumulative implant survival rates were 88.6% (CI 85.3-91.2). When compared with <55 year age group, the 55-64, 65-74 and ≥75 groups had significantly lower revision rates (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.56 (CI 0.32-0.98, P = .04), HR 0.40 (CI 0.22-0.72, P = .003), and HR 0.27 (CI 0.12-0.58, P = .001), respectively). The obese group had significantly (P = .04) increased revision risk compared with normal BMI (HR 2.33, CI 1.06-5.12). The commonest reasons for revision surgery were dislocation (n = 23, 2.3%), pain (n = 15, 1.5%), and aseptic loosening (n = 14, 1.4%). CONCLUSION: The Lateral Domed Oxford UKR provides a good option for isolated lateral compartment osteoarthritis. However, dislocation of the mobile bearing remains a problem, occurring in 2.3% of the patients and accounting for 30% of the revisions. To help prevent dislocation, it is now possible to assess bearing stability intraoperatively and if very unstable to implant a compatible fixed bearing tibial component, without the need for further bone preparation.

Early Recovery Following Total and Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Assessed Using Novel Patient-Reported Measures.

BACKGROUND: The early postoperative recovery period following unicompartmental (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an important area for research with increasingly sensitive metrics and new technologies. This study uses 2 recently developed patient-reported scores to compare the recovery following UKA and TKA. METHODS: Two consecutive cohorts of 37 UKAs and 33 TKAs completed the Oxford Arthroplasty Early Recovery Score (OARS) and the Oxford Arthroplasty Early Change Score (OACS) on days 1, 2, 3, 7, 14, and week 6. The Short Form-36 version 2 was also completed on weeks 1, 2, and 6. Improvements within cohorts and comparisons between cohorts were assessed. RESULTS: For both UKA and TKA the speed of recovery was rapid early on and then progressively decreased. At all time points, the UKA cohort reported similar or significantly better scores than the TKA cohort. The overall OARS (P < .001) showed that UKA recovered, shown as improvement on the OARS, 2-3 times faster than TKA. OARS subscales demonstrated that UKA had better Function/Mobility (P = .003) particularly early in the recovery, and better Nausea/Feeling Unwell (P < .001) and Fatigue/Sleep (P = .009) later in the recovery. UKA also had less pain at 2 weeks (P = .03). There was no significant difference between UKA and TKA OACS. UKA had significantly better scores in 3 of the 8 Short Form-36 domains, with the largest difference being in Role-Emotional (P = .003). CONCLUSION: The OARS is useful for the assessment of postoperative recovery. This study provides direct evidence that recovery following UKA is better and 2-3 times faster than following TKA. All differences may be explained by the less invasive nature of UKA.

A matched comparison of the patient-reported outcome measures of 38,716 total and unicompartmental knee replacements: an analysis of linked data from the National Joint Registry of England, Northern Ireland and Isle of Man and England's National PROM collection programme.

Background and purpose - The surgical treatment options for severe knee osteoarthritis are unicompartmental (UKR) and total knee replacement (TKR). For patients, functional outcomes are more important than revision rate. We compared the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of both implant types using a large PROMs dataset.Patients and methods - We analysed a propensity-matched comparison of 38,716 knee replacements (19,358 UKRs and 19,358 TKRs) enrolled in the National Joint Registry and the English National PROM collection programme. Subgroup analyses were performed in different age groups.Results - 6-month postoperative Oxford Knee Score (OKS) for UKR and TKR were 38 (SD 9.4) and 36 (SD 9.4) respectively. A higher proportion of UKRs had an excellent OKS (≥ 41) compared with TKR (47% vs 36%) and a lower proportion of poor OKS (< 27) scores (13% vs. 16%). The 6-month OKS was higher in all age groups for UKR compared with TKR, with the difference increasing in older age groups. The mean 6-month EQ-5D score was 0.78 (SD 0.25) and 0.75 (SD 0.25) respectively. The improvement in EQ-5D resulting from surgery was higher for UKR than TKR both overall and in all age groups. All comparisons were statistically significant (p < 0.05).Interpretation - UKR had a greater proportion of excellent OKS scores and lower proportion of poor scores than TKR. Additionally, the quality of life was higher for UKR compared with TKR. These factors should be balanced against the higher revision rate for UKR when choosing which procedure to perform.

Threshold for Computer- and Robot-Assisted Knee and Hip Replacements in the English National Health Service.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate threshold prices for computer- and robot-assisted knee and hip replacement. METHODS: A lifetime cohort Markov model provided the framework for analysis. Linked primary care and inpatient hospital records informed estimates of outcomes under current practice. Outcomes were estimated under a range of hypothetical relative improvements in quality of life if unrevised and in revision risk after computer or robot-assisted surgery. Threshold prices, a price at which the net health benefit from funding the intervention would be zero, for these improvements were estimated for a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: For average patient profiles under current knee and hip replacement practice, lifetime QALYs were 10.3 (9.9 to 10.7) and 11.0 (10.6 to 11.4), with costs of £6060 (£5947 to £6203) and £6506 (£6335 to £6710) for knee and hip replacement, respectively. A combined 50% relative reduction in risk of revision and 5% improvement in postoperative quality of life if unrevised would, for example, result in QALYs increasing to 10.9 (10.4 to 11.3) and 11.6 (11.2 to 12.0), and costs falling to £5880 (£5816 to £5956) and £6258 (£6149 to £6376) after knee and hip replacement, respectively. These particular improvements would have an associated threshold price of £11 182 (£10 691 to £11 721) for knee replacement and £12 134 (£11 616 to £12 701) for hip replacement. The 50% reduction in revision rate alone would have associated threshold prices of £1094 (£788 to £1488) and £1347 (£961 to £1842), and the 5% improvement in quality of life alone would have associated threshold prices of £9911 (£9476 to £10 296) and £10 578 (£10 171 to £10 982). CONCLUSIONS: At current prices, computer- and robot-assisted knee and hip replacement will likely need to lead to improvements in patient-reported outcomes in addition to any reduction in the risk revision.

Most unicompartmental knee replacement revisions could be avoided: a radiographic evaluation of revised Oxford knees in the National Joint Registry.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to understand why the revision rate of unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) in the National Joint Registry (NJR) is so high. Using radiographs, the appropriateness of patient selection for primary surgery, surgical technique, and indications for revision were determined. In addition, the alignment of the radiographs was assessed. METHODS: Oxford UKR registered with the NJR between 2006 and 2010 and subsequently revised were identified by the NJR. A blinded review was undertaken of pre-primary, post-primary, and pre-revision anteroposterior and lateral radiographs of a sample of 107 cases from multiple centres. RESULTS: The recommended indications were satisfied in 70%, with 29% not demonstrating bone-on-bone arthritis. Major technical errors, likely leading to revision, were seen in 6%. Pre-revision radiographs were malaligned and, therefore, difficult to interpret in 53%. No reason for revision was seen in 67%. Reasons for revision included lateral compartment arthritis (10%), tibial loosening (7%), bearing dislocation (7%), infection (6%), femoral loosening (3%), and peri-prosthetic fracture (2%, one femoral, one tibial). CONCLUSIONS: Only 20% of the revised UKR were implanted for the recommended indications, using appropriate surgical technique and had a mechanical problem necessitating revision. One-third of primary surgeries were undertaken in patients with early arthritis, which is contraindicated. Two-thirds were presumably revised for unexplained pain, which is not advised as it tends not to help the pain. This study suggests that variable and inappropriate indications for primary and revision surgery are responsible for the high rates of revision seen in registries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, Therapeutic study.

Ten-year clinical and radiographic results of 1000 cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacements.

PURPOSE: Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) has substantial benefits over total knee replacement (TKR) but has higher revision rates. The cementless Oxford UKR was introduced to address this but there are concerns about fixation and tibial plateau fractures. The first long-term study of the device with clinical and radiographic outcomes is reported. METHODS: The first 1000 medial cementless Oxford UKR were prospectively identified and followed up by independent physiotherapists. Survival was calculated using the endpoints reoperation, revision, revision to TKR, major revision requiring revision TKR components and patient mortality. The Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Tegner Activity Score and American Knee Society Score (AKSS) were recorded and radiographs analysed. RESULTS: The ten year survival was 96.6% (CI 94.8-97.8), 97.5% (CI 95.7-98.5), 98.9% (CI 97.7-99.4) and 99.6% (CI 98.8-99.9) using reoperation, revision, revision to TKR and major revision as the endpoint, respectively. Commonest causes for revision were bearing dislocation (n = 7, 0.7%), disease progression (n = 4, 0.4%) and pain (n = 2, 0.2%). There was one lateral tibial plateau fracture and one femoral component loosening. At 10 years, the mean OKS was 41.2 (SD 9.8), Tegner 2.8 (SD 1.3), AKSS-O 89.1 (SD 13.0) and AKSS-F 80.4 (SD 14.6). There were no pathological radiolucencies or complete radiolucent lines. There were no implant-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: The cementless Oxford UKR is a safe procedure with excellent long-term clinical results. Our results suggest that reliable fixation was achieved with only one (0.1%) revision for loosening (femoral), no radiographic evidence of loosening in the remaining cases and no fractures related to implantation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.