BACKGROUND: Medial compartment osteoarthritis is a common disorder that often is treated by unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Although the Oxford 3 prosthesis is commonly used based on revision rate and cumulative survival, our experience suggests that although there may be adequate implant survival rates, we observed a worrisome and undisclosed reintervention rate of nonrevision procedures. PURPOSE: We describe the frequency and cause of repeat intervention subsequent to implanting this device. METHODS: Between 1998 and 2005, 398 patients underwent UKA using the Oxford 3 prosthesis. The minimum followup was 12 months (mean, 43 months; range, 12-102 months). RESULTS: Forty of the 398 (10%) patients had 55 (13.8%) repeat anesthetics (reintervention). There were 38 nonrevision reinterventions. Revision was performed in 15 patients (3.8%), but two patients had a second revision (17 revisions or 4.3%). We revised the UKA to a second UKA in seven of the 15 cases but two subsequently were rerevised to a TKA; eight were revised directly to a TKA. CONCLUSIONS: Although our data confirm the reported revision rates for this prosthesis, we observed a substantial reintervention rate. Most of the reinterventions are minor and are diagnosed frequently and treated arthroscopically. If revision is required, a second UKA may be considered and performed successfully in patients with isolated loosening of one component. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
BACKGROUND: Medial compartment osteoarthritis is a common disorder that often is treated by unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Although the Oxford 3 prosthesis is commonly used based on revision rate and cumulative survival, our experience suggests that although there may be adequate implant survival rates, we observed a worrisome and undisclosed reintervention rate of nonrevision procedures. PURPOSE: We describe the frequency and cause of repeat intervention subsequent to implanting this device. METHODS: Between 1998 and 2005, 398 patients underwent UKA using the Oxford 3 prosthesis. The minimum followup was 12 months (mean, 43 months; range, 12-102 months). RESULTS: Forty of the 398 (10%) patients had 55 (13.8%) repeat anesthetics (reintervention). There were 38 nonrevision reinterventions. Revision was performed in 15 patients (3.8%), but two patients had a second revision (17 revisions or 4.3%). We revised the UKA to a second UKA in seven of the 15 cases but two subsequently were rerevised to a TKA; eight were revised directly to a TKA. CONCLUSIONS: Although our data confirm the reported revision rates for this prosthesis, we observed a substantial reintervention rate. Most of the reinterventions are minor and are diagnosed frequently and treated arthroscopically. If revision is required, a second UKA may be considered and performed successfully in patients with isolated loosening of one component. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Authors: Terence J Gioe; Kathleen K Killeen; Daniel P Hoeffel; Jack M Bert; Thomas K Comfort; Karen Scheltema; Susan Mehle; Katherine Grimm Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: William G Hamilton; Matthew B Collier; Eshan Tarabee; James P McAuley; C Anderson Engh; Gerard A Engh Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Lukas A Lisowski; Michel P J van den Bekerom; Peter Pilot; C Niek van Dijk; Andrzej E Lisowski Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2010-07-17 Impact factor: 4.342