Jin Kyu Lee1, Hyun Jung Kim2, Jae Ok Park3, Jae-Hyuk Yang4. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hanyang University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea. 2. Department of Preventive Medicine, College of Medicine, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea. 3. Medical Library, Veterans Health Service Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea. 4. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hanyang University Guri Hospital, 153, Gyeongchunro, Guri, Gyeonggi-Do, 11923, South Korea. jaekorea@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with primary TKA through a review of previously published studies. The hypothesis was that the revised UKA group would need additional operative procedures, including the use of stems and augments, resulting in poorer clinical outcomes than those of the primary TKA group. METHODS: A literature search of online register databases was performed to identify clinical trials that compared revised UKA to TKA with primary TKA. An electronic literature search was performed using the Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. No language or date restrictions were applied. RESULTS: A total of 2034 articles were identified from a keyword search, of which 11 studies were determined as eligible. They were all retrospective comparative studies. The revised UKA to TKA group had longer operation times resulting from additional procedures such as bone grafting and use of stems and augments, higher reoperation rates, and worse postoperative clinical outcomes based on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and Oxford Knee Score than the primary TKA group, with the differences being statistically significant. CONCLUSION: UKA should not be considered an alternative procedure to TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with primary TKA through a review of previously published studies. The hypothesis was that the revised UKA group would need additional operative procedures, including the use of stems and augments, resulting in poorer clinical outcomes than those of the primary TKA group. METHODS: A literature search of online register databases was performed to identify clinical trials that compared revised UKA to TKA with primary TKA. An electronic literature search was performed using the Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. No language or date restrictions were applied. RESULTS: A total of 2034 articles were identified from a keyword search, of which 11 studies were determined as eligible. They were all retrospective comparative studies. The revised UKA to TKA group had longer operation times resulting from additional procedures such as bone grafting and use of stems and augments, higher reoperation rates, and worse postoperative clinical outcomes based on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and Oxford Knee Score than the primary TKA group, with the differences being statistically significant. CONCLUSION: UKA should not be considered an alternative procedure to TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III.
Authors: Matthias F Pietschmann; Andreas Ficklscherer; Lisa Wohlleb; Florian Schmidutz; Volkmar Jansson; Peter E Müller Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2014-06-02 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Manuel Weißenberger; Alexander Klug; Yves Gramlich; Maximilian Rudert; Philipp Drees; Reinhard Hoffmann; Karl Philipp Kutzner Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2020-07-15 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Nike Walter; Johannes Weber; Maximilian Kerschbaum; Edmund Lau; Steven M Kurtz; Volker Alt; Markus Rupp Journal: J Orthop Surg Res Date: 2021-11-12 Impact factor: 2.359