Outcome of mobile and fixed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and risk factors for revision

Abstract

Objectives In this study, we aimed to evaluate the outcomes of patients undergoing unilateral knee arthroplasty (UKA) and to analyze risk factors that may lead to revision in patients who undergo UKA. Methods We included patients who underwent mobile or fixed UKA owing to osteoarthritis and who had at least 24 months of follow-up in the postoperative period. We recorded information on patient age, sex, side, body mass (kg/m2), follow-up duration, Knee Society Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain, WOMAC function, WOMAC stiffness, mechanical axle angle, femoral component compliance, tibial component compliance, accumulated experience of the surgeon, and revision status. Results In total, we evaluated 131 knees in 118 patients. 50 (38%) who underwent mobile UKA and 81 (62%) who underwent fixed UKA. The effect of obesity on mobile and fixed UKA revision was significant. The likelihood of revision decreased with greater experience of the surgeon performing UKA. Conclusion Our study showed that the clinical results of mobile and fixed UKA procedures are similar. We also revealed that obesity poses a risk for revision in both fixed and mobile UKA, and the revision rate decreases with increased experience of the surgeon.

Trends in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty among 138 international experienced arthroplasty knee surgeons

“…The majority of the surgeons in our survey were comfortable with fixed-bearing implants (56 %). Recent meta-analyses showed no differences in clinical patient-reported outcomes or overall revision rates between mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing implants [ 18 , 29 ]. There are several possible explanations for the higher preference for fixed-bearing UKAs in this survey: fixed-bearing UKAs are easier to learn (shortening the learning curve), are reproducible in nondeveloper hands and are easier to balance [ 18 , 29 ].…”

Time trends in case-mix and risk of revision following hip and knee arthroplasty in public and private hospitals: a cross-sectional analysis based on 476,312 procedures from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register

“…Hence, patient selection should be considered when interpreting revision rates of private and public hospitals. For instance, the a priori revision risk is significantly increased in patients with higher BMI and ASA class [ 18 - 22 ]. Notwithstanding our efforts to narrow the selection criteria to patients with ASA I/II, age ≤ 75, BMI ≤ 30, a diagnosis of OA, and moderate to high SES, in order to create equal groups, we observed a lower risk of revision among patients from private hospitals.…”

Arthroscopically-assisted retrieval of a fractured polyethylene Oxford knee meniscal bearing: a case report

“…However these advantages make the device vulnerable to dislocation, which although rare, has an incidence of 0.5% in medial UKA and up to 10% in lateral UKA. 2 There are few reports of breakage of the mobile bearing following Oxford knee medial unicompartmental replacement.…”