Adolph V Lombardi1, Mark T Kolich2, Keith R Berend3, Michael J Morris3, David A Crawford3, Joanne B Adams4. 1. Joint Implant Surgeons, Inc., New Albany, Ohio; White Fence Surgical Suites, New Albany, Ohio; Mount Carmel Health System, New Albany, Ohio; Department of Orthopaedics, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio. 2. Spectrum Orthopaedics, Canton, Ohio. 3. Joint Implant Surgeons, Inc., New Albany, Ohio; White Fence Surgical Suites, New Albany, Ohio; Mount Carmel Health System, New Albany, Ohio. 4. Joint Implant Surgeons, Inc., New Albany, Ohio.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is touted as a more conservative, bone- and tissue-sparing procedure than total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Similarly, revision of UKA to TKA is generally a simpler procedure than revision of TKA to TKA and can be accomplished with primary TKA components in most cases. The purpose of this study was to review a consecutive series of patients undergoing revision of failed UKA to TKA to determine if etiology is similar to that reported in recent literature and evaluate if the results align more with primary TKA vs revision of TKA to TKA. METHODS: A query of our private practice registry from 1996 to 2015 revealed 184 patients (193 knees) who underwent revisions of failed UKA with minimum 2-year follow-up. The mean age was 63.5 (37-84) years, body mass index was 32.3 (19-57) kg/m2, and interval after UKA was 4.8 (0-35) years. The most prevalent indications for UKA revision were aseptic loosening (42%) arthritic progression (20%), and tibial collapse (14%). RESULTS: At 6.1-year mean follow-up (2-20), 8 knees (4.1%) required re-revision, which is similar to what we reported at 5.5 years in a group of primary TKA patients (6 of 189; 3.2%) and much lower than what we observed at 6.0 years in a recent study of aseptic revision TKA patients (35 of 278; 12.6%). In the study group, Knee Society clinical and function scores improved from 50.8 and 52.1 preoperatively to 83.4 and 67.6 at the most recent evaluation. Re-revisions were for aseptic loosening (3), instability (2), arthrofibrosis (2), and infection (1). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to published individual institution and national registry data, re-revision rates of failed UKA are equivalent to revision rates of primary TKA and substantially better than re-revision rates of revision TKA. These data should be used to counsel patients undergoing revision UKA to TKA.
BACKGROUND: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is touted as a more conservative, bone- and tissue-sparing procedure than total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Similarly, revision of UKA to TKA is generally a simpler procedure than revision of TKA to TKA and can be accomplished with primary TKA components in most cases. The purpose of this study was to review a consecutive series of patients undergoing revision of failed UKA to TKA to determine if etiology is similar to that reported in recent literature and evaluate if the results align more with primary TKA vs revision of TKA to TKA. METHODS: A query of our private practice registry from 1996 to 2015 revealed 184 patients (193 knees) who underwent revisions of failed UKA with minimum 2-year follow-up. The mean age was 63.5 (37-84) years, body mass index was 32.3 (19-57) kg/m2, and interval after UKA was 4.8 (0-35) years. The most prevalent indications for UKA revision were aseptic loosening (42%) arthritic progression (20%), and tibial collapse (14%). RESULTS: At 6.1-year mean follow-up (2-20), 8 knees (4.1%) required re-revision, which is similar to what we reported at 5.5 years in a group of primary TKA patients (6 of 189; 3.2%) and much lower than what we observed at 6.0 years in a recent study of aseptic revision TKA patients (35 of 278; 12.6%). In the study group, Knee Society clinical and function scores improved from 50.8 and 52.1 preoperatively to 83.4 and 67.6 at the most recent evaluation. Re-revisions were for aseptic loosening (3), instability (2), arthrofibrosis (2), and infection (1). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to published individual institution and national registry data, re-revision rates of failed UKA are equivalent to revision rates of primary TKA and substantially better than re-revision rates of revision TKA. These data should be used to counsel patients undergoing revision UKA to TKA.