BACKGROUND: Balancing the relative advantages and disadvantages of unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKAs) against those for TKAs can be challenging. Survivorship is one important end point; arthroplasty registers repeatedly report inferior midterm survival rates, but longer-term data are sparse. Comparing survival directly by using arthroplasty register survival reports also may be inadequate because of differences in indications, implant designs, and patient demographics in patients having UKAs and TKAs. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The aims of this study were to assess the survivorship of UKA in the context of one large, northern European registry, and to compare the rates of survivorship with those of cemented TKAs performed for primary knee osteoarthritis during the same 27-year period. METHODS: From the Finnish Arthroplasty Register, we obtained the data for 4713 patients undergoing UKAs for primary osteoarthritis (mean age, 63.5 years; minimum followup, 0 years; mean, 6.0 years; range, 0-24 years) who had surgical revision between 1985 and 2011. From this cohort, we calculated the Kaplan-Meier survivorship for revision performed for any reason and compared it with the survivorship of 83,511 patients (mean age, 69.5 years; minimum followup 0 years; mean, 6.4 years; range, 0-27 years) with TKAs treated for primary osteoarthritis during the same period. Data were adjusted for age and sex in a comparative analysis. RESULTS: Kaplan-Meier survivorship of UKAs was 89.4% at 5 years, 80.6% at 10 years, and 69.6% at 15 years; the corresponding rates for TKAs were 96.3%, 93.3%, and 88.7%, respectively. UKAs had inferior long-term survivorship compared with cemented TKAs, even after adjusting for the age and sex of the patients (hazard ratio 2.2, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A UKA offers tempting advantages compared with a TKA; however, the revision frequency for UKAs in widespread use, as measured in a large, national registry, was poorer than that of TKAs. When choosing between a UKA and a TKA, patients should be informed of advantages of both procedures, but they also should be advised about the generally higher revision risk after UKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
BACKGROUND: Balancing the relative advantages and disadvantages of unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKAs) against those for TKAs can be challenging. Survivorship is one important end point; arthroplasty registers repeatedly report inferior midterm survival rates, but longer-term data are sparse. Comparing survival directly by using arthroplasty register survival reports also may be inadequate because of differences in indications, implant designs, and patient demographics in patients having UKAs and TKAs. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The aims of this study were to assess the survivorship of UKA in the context of one large, northern European registry, and to compare the rates of survivorship with those of cemented TKAs performed for primary knee osteoarthritis during the same 27-year period. METHODS: From the Finnish Arthroplasty Register, we obtained the data for 4713 patients undergoing UKAs for primary osteoarthritis (mean age, 63.5 years; minimum followup, 0 years; mean, 6.0 years; range, 0-24 years) who had surgical revision between 1985 and 2011. From this cohort, we calculated the Kaplan-Meier survivorship for revision performed for any reason and compared it with the survivorship of 83,511 patients (mean age, 69.5 years; minimum followup 0 years; mean, 6.4 years; range, 0-27 years) with TKAs treated for primary osteoarthritis during the same period. Data were adjusted for age and sex in a comparative analysis. RESULTS: Kaplan-Meier survivorship of UKAs was 89.4% at 5 years, 80.6% at 10 years, and 69.6% at 15 years; the corresponding rates for TKAs were 96.3%, 93.3%, and 88.7%, respectively. UKAs had inferior long-term survivorship compared with cemented TKAs, even after adjusting for the age and sex of the patients (hazard ratio 2.2, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A UKA offers tempting advantages compared with a TKA; however, the revision frequency for UKAs in widespread use, as measured in a large, national registry, was poorer than that of TKAs. When choosing between a UKA and a TKA, patients should be informed of advantages of both procedures, but they also should be advised about the generally higher revision risk after UKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Authors: Nicholas M Brown; Neil P Sheth; Kenneth Davis; Mike E Berend; Adolph V Lombardi; Keith R Berend; Craig J Della Valle Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2012-05-04 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: William C Schroer; C Lowry Barnes; Paul Diesfeld; Angela LeMarr; Rachel Ingrassia; Diane J Morton; Mary Reedy Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2013-08-02 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Gregory G Polkowski; Erin L Ruh; Toby N Barrack; Ryan M Nunley; Robert L Barrack Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Laura J Kleeblad; Jelle P van der List; Hendrik A Zuiderbaan; Andrew D Pearle Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Andrew D Pearle; Jelle P van der List; Lily Lee; Thomas M Coon; Todd A Borus; Martin W Roche Journal: Knee Date: 2017-02-06 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Anatole V Wiik; Adeel Aqil; Sara Tankard; Andrew A Amis; Justin P Cobb Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2014-08-27 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Christoph A Agten; Filippo Del Grande; Sandro F Fucentese; Samuel Blatter; Christian W A Pfirrmann; Reto Sutter Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-01-28 Impact factor: 5.315