Skip to main content
PMC home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2020 Apr;24(20):1–98. doi: 10.3310/hta24200

Total versus partial knee replacement in patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis: the TOPKAT RCT.

David J Beard, Loretta J Davies, Jonathan A Cook, Graeme MacLennan, Andrew Price, Seamus Kent, Jemma Hudson, Andrew Carr, Jose Leal, Helen Campbell, Ray Fitzpatrick, Nigel Arden, David Murray, Marion K Campbell
PMCID: PMC7232134  PMID: 32369436

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Late-stage medial compartment knee osteoarthritis can be treated using total knee replacement or partial (unicompartmental) knee replacement. There is high variation in treatment choice and insufficient evidence to guide selection.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of partial knee replacement compared with total knee replacement in patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis. The findings are intended to guide surgical decision-making for patients, surgeons and health-care providers.

DESIGN

This was a randomised, multicentre, pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial that included an expertise component. The target sample size was 500 patients. A web-based randomisation system was used to allocate treatments.

SETTING

Twenty-seven NHS hospitals (68 surgeons).

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis.

INTERVENTIONS

The trial compared the overall management strategy of partial knee replacement treatment with total knee replacement treatment. No specified brand or subtype of implant was investigated.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The Oxford Knee Score at 5 years was the primary end point. Secondary outcomes included activity scores, global health measures, transition items, patient satisfaction (Lund Score) and complications (including reoperation, revision and composite 'failure' - defined by minimal Oxford Knee Score improvement and/or reoperation). Cost-effectiveness was also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 528 patients were randomised (partial knee replacement, n = 264; total knee replacement, n = 264). The follow-up primary outcome response rate at 5 years was 88% and both operations had good outcomes. There was no significant difference between groups in mean Oxford Knee Score at 5 years (difference 1.04, 95% confidence interval -0.42 to 2.50). An area under the curve analysis of the Oxford Knee Score at 5 years showed benefit in favour of partial knee replacement over total knee replacement, but the difference was within the minimal clinically important difference [mean 36.6 (standard deviation 8.3) (n = 233), mean 35.1 (standard deviation 9.1) (n = 231), respectively]. Secondary outcome measures showed consistent patterns of benefit in the direction of partial knee replacement compared with total knee replacement although most differences were small and non-significant. Patient-reported improvement (transition) and reflection (would you have the operation again?) showed statistically significant superiority for partial knee replacement only, but both of these variables could be influenced by the lack of blinding. The frequency of reoperation (including revision) by treatment received was similar for both groups: 22 out of 245 for partial knee replacement and 28 out of 269 for total knee replacement patients. Revision rates at 5 years were 10 out of 245 for partial knee replacement and 8 out of 269 for total knee replacement. There were 28 'failures' of partial knee replacement and 38 'failures' of total knee replacement (as defined by composite outcome). Beyond 1 year, partial knee replacement was cost-effective compared with total knee replacement, being associated with greater health benefits (measured using quality-adjusted life-years) and lower health-care costs, reflecting lower costs of the index surgery and subsequent health-care use.

LIMITATIONS

It was not possible to blind patients in this study and there was some non-compliance with the allocated treatment interventions. Surgeons providing partial knee replacement were relatively experienced with the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Both total knee replacement and partial knee replacement are effective, offer similar clinical outcomes and have similar reoperation and complication rates. Some patient-reported measures of treatment approval were significantly higher for partial knee replacement than for total knee replacement. Partial knee replacement was more cost-effective (more effective and cost saving) than total knee replacement at 5 years.

FUTURE WORK

Further (10-year) follow-up is in progress to assess the longer-term stability of these findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN03013488 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01352247.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 20. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Plain language summary

WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?

Two types of knee replacement are available for patients with arthritis of the inner part of their knee: a partial knee replacement or a total knee replacement. It is not known which replacement offers most benefit for the patient or for the health-care system.

WHAT DID WE DO?

We performed a large study involving 528 patients at 27 hospitals with 68 experienced surgeons, in which half of the patients underwent partial knee replacement and the other half underwent total knee replacement. We took yearly scores and measures, including pain, function, whether or not the operation was successful, and the costs of each patient for 5 years. Comparison between treatments was assessed at 5 years post operation.

WHAT DID WE FIND?

Good outcomes and relatively few complications were observed after both operations. The measurements taken to assess the clinical benefit were largely very similar between the two groups. Where differences did occur at 5 years, there were only small differences between the two knee replacements and partial knee replacement was generally favoured. Some measurements, however, did show a larger difference between the two groups, including whether or not the operation addressed the patients’ problems and whether or not the patient would have the operation again. These measurements were also in favour of partial knee replacement, but caution is required not to overstate importance, as patients in the study knew which device they had had implanted. The number of patients requiring further operations or revision surgery was similar in the two groups. This last finding contrasts with information from previously obtained, mainly non-randomised, studies and is of high relevance. The cost of each operation in relation to the benefit obtained was clearly in favour of partial knee replacement.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

Both operations are effective for use in the NHS. There appear to be some modest clinical advantages for patients to undergo partial knee replacement over total knee replacement but, importantly, the study casts doubt over previous concerns on high reoperation rates for partial knee replacement. The study has shown that reoperation rates recorded from different sources (cohort or trials) can be conflicting.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. Beard D, Price A, Cook J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A, Campbell M, et al. Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial – TOPKAT: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2013;14:292. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-14-292 doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-292. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  2. Bennell KL, Hunter DJ, Hinman RS. Management of osteoarthritis of the knee. BMJ 2012;345:e4934. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e4934 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e4934. [DOI] [PubMed]
  3. Litwic A, Edwards MH, Dennison EM, Cooper C. Epidemiology and burden of osteoarthritis. Br Med Bull 2013;105:185–99. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/lds038 doi: 10.1093/bmb/lds038. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  4. Willis-Owen CA, Brust K, Alsop H, Miraldo M, Cobb JP. Unicondylar knee arthroplasty in the UK National Health Service: an analysis of candidacy, outcome and cost efficacy. Knee 2009;16:473–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2009.04.006 doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2009.04.006. [DOI] [PubMed]
  5. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guideline Scope Hip, Knee and Shoulder Joint Replacement (GID-NG10084). London: NICE; 2018. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-ng10084/documents/draft-scope (accessed December 2018).
  6. National Joint Registry. National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. 15th Annual Report 2018. URL: https://reports.njrcentre.org.uk/Portals/7/PDFdownloads/NJR%2015th%20Annual%20Report%202018.pdf (accessed January 2019).
  7. Ethgen O, Bruyère O, Richy F, Dardennes C, Reginster JY. Health-related quality of life in total hip and total knee arthroplasty. A qualitative and systematic review of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86:963–74. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200405000-00012 doi: 10.2106/00004623-200405000-00012. [DOI] [PubMed]
  8. Kane RL, Saleh KJ, Wilt TJ, Bershadsky B. The functional outcomes of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005;87:1719–24. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200508000-00008 doi: 10.2106/00004623-200508000-00008. [DOI] [PubMed]
  9. Beard DJ, Holt MD, Mullins MM, Malek S, Massa E, Price AJ. Decision making for knee replacement: variation in treatment choice for late stage medial compartment osteoarthritis. Knee 2012;19:886–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2012.05.005 doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2012.05.005. [DOI] [PubMed]
  10. Weale AE, Murray DW, Baines J, Newman JH. Radiological changes five years after unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2000;82:996–1000. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.82b7.10466 doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.82b7.10466. [DOI] [PubMed]
  11. Khan OH, Davies H, Newman JH, Weale AE. Radiological changes ten years after St. Georg Sled unicompartmental knee replacement. Knee 2004;11:403–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2004.07.003 doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2004.07.003. [DOI] [PubMed]
  12. Pearse AJ, Hooper GJ, Rothwell A, Frampton C. Survival and functional outcome after revision of a unicompartmental to a total knee replacement: the New Zealand National Joint Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010;92:508–12. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.92B4.22659 doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.92B4.22659. [DOI] [PubMed]
  13. Cameron HU, Jung YB. A comparison of unicompartmental knee replacement with total knee replacement. Orthop Rev 1988;17:983–8. [PubMed]
  14. Price AJ, Webb J, Topf H, Dodd CA, Goodfellow JW, Murray DW, Oxford Hip and Knee Group. Rapid recovery after oxford unicompartmental arthroplasty through a short incision. J Arthroplasty 2001;16:970–6. https://doi.org/10.1054/arth.2001.25552 doi: 10.1054/arth.2001.25552. [DOI] [PubMed]
  15. Brown NM, Sheth NP, Davis K, Berend ME, Lombardi AV, Berend KR, Della Valle CJ. Total knee arthroplasty has higher postoperative morbidity than unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a multicenter analysis. J Arthroplasty 2012;27(Suppl. 8):86–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2012.03.022 doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2012.03.022. [DOI] [PubMed]
  16. Hassaballa MA, Porteous AJ, Newman JH. Observed kneeling ability after total, unicompartmental and patellofemoral knee arthroplasty: perception versus reality. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2004;12:136–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-003-0376-5 doi: 10.1007/s00167-003-0376-5. [DOI] [PubMed]
  17. Newman JH, Ackroyd CE, Shah NA. Unicompartmental or total knee replacement? Five-year results of a prospective, randomised trial of 102 osteoarthritic knees with unicompartmental arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998;80:862–5. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.80B5.0800862 doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.80B5.0800862. [DOI] [PubMed]
  18. Newman J, Pydisetty RV, Ackroyd C. Unicompartmental or total knee replacement: the 15-year results of a prospective randomised controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009;91:52–7. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.91B1.20899 doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.91B1.20899. [DOI] [PubMed]
  19. Dennis D, Komistek R, Scuderi G, Argenson JN, Insall J, Mahfouz M, et al. In vivo three-dimensional determination of kinematics for subjects with a normal knee or a unicompartmental or total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001;83–A:104–15. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200100022-00008 doi: 10.2106/00004623-200100022-00008. [DOI] [PubMed]
  20. Isaac SM, Barker KL, Danial IN, Beard DJ, Dodd CA, Murray DW. Does arthroplasty type influence knee joint proprioception? A longitudinal prospective study comparing total and unicompartmental arthroplasty. Knee 2007;14:212–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2007.01.001 doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2007.01.001. [DOI] [PubMed]
  21. Gill T, Schemitsch EH, Brick GW, Thornhill TS. Revision total knee arthroplasty after failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty or high tibial osteotomy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1995;321:10–18. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-199512000-00003 doi: 10.1097/00003086-199512000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed]
  22. Padgett DE, Stern SH, Insall JN. Revision total knee arthroplasty for failed unicompartmental replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1991;73:186–90. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199173020-00005 doi: 10.2106/00004623-199173020-00005. [DOI] [PubMed]
  23. Saldanha KA, Keys GW, Svard UC, White SH, Rao C. Revision of Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty - results of a multicentre study. Knee 2007;14:275–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2007.03.005 doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2007.03.005. [DOI] [PubMed]
  24. Cameron HU, Park YS. Total knee replacement following high tibial osteotomy and unicompartmental knee. Orthopedics 1996;19:807–8. https://doi.org/10.3928/0147-7447-19960901-30 doi: 10.3928/0147-7447-19960901-30. [DOI] [PubMed]
  25. Jackson M, Sarangi PP, Newman JH. Revision total knee arthroplasty. Comparison of outcome following primary proximal tibial osteotomy or unicompartmental arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1994;9:539–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-5403(94)90102-3 doi: 10.1016/0883-5403(94)90102-3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  26. Johnson S, Jones P, Newman JH. The survivorship and results of total knee replacements converted from unicompartmental knee replacements. Knee 2007;14:154–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2006.11.012 doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2006.11.012. [DOI] [PubMed]
  27. Levine WN, Ozuna RM, Scott RD, Thornhill TS. Conversion of failed modern unicompartmental arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1996;11:797–801. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-5403(96)80179-3 doi: 10.1016/S0883-5403(96)80179-3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  28. Myers TG, Cui Q, Kuskowski M, Mihalko WM, Saleh KJ. Outcomes of total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for secondary and spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;88(Suppl. 3):76–82. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200611001-00012 doi: 10.2106/00004623-200611001-00012. [DOI] [PubMed]
  29. Fisher DA, Watts M, Davis KE. Implant position in knee surgery: a comparison of minimally invasive, open unicompartmental, and total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2003;18(Suppl. 7):2–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-5403(03)00291-2 doi: 10.1016/S0883-5403(03)00291-2. [DOI] [PubMed]
  30. Jenny JY, Boeri C. Accuracy of implantation of a unicompartmental total knee arthroplasty with 2 different instrumentations: a case-controlled comparative study. J Arthroplasty 2002;17:1016–20. https://doi.org/10.1054/arth.2002.34524 doi: 10.1054/arth.2002.34524. [DOI] [PubMed]
  31. Manzotti A, Confalonieri N, Pullen C. Unicompartmental versus computer-assisted total knee replacement for medial compartment knee arthritis: a matched paired study. Int Orthop 2007;31:315–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-006-0184-x doi: 10.1007/s00264-006-0184-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  32. Engh GA, Dwyer KA, Hanes CK. Polyethylene wear of metal-backed tibial components in total and unicompartmental knee prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1992;74:9–17. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.74B1.1732274 doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.74B1.1732274. [DOI] [PubMed]
  33. Weale AE, Murray DW, Newman JH, Ackroyd CE. The length of the patellar tendon after unicompartmental and total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1999;81:790–5. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.81b5.9590 doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.81b5.9590. [DOI] [PubMed]
  34. Murray DW, MacLennan GS, Breeman S, Dakin HA, Johnston L, Campbell MK, et al. A randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different knee prostheses: the Knee Arthroplasty Trial (KAT). Health Technol Assess 2014;18(19). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18190 doi: 10.3310/hta18190. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  35. Amin AK, Patton JT, Cook RE, Gaston M, Brenkel IJ. Unicompartmental or total knee arthroplasty?: Results from a matched study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006;451:101–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000224052.01873.20 doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000224052.01873.20. [DOI] [PubMed]
  36. Laurencin CT, Zelicof SB, Scott RD, Ewald FC. Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in the same patient. A comparative study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1991;273:151–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-199112000-00023 doi: 10.1097/00003086-199112000-00023. [DOI] [PubMed]
  37. Soohoo NF, Sharifi H, Kominski G, Lieberman JR. Cost-effectiveness analysis of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty as an alternative to total knee arthroplasty for unicompartmental osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;88:1975–82. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200609000-00011 doi: 10.2106/00004623-200609000-00011. [DOI] [PubMed]
  38. Slover J, Espehaug B, Havelin LI, Engesaeter LB, Furnes O, Tomek I, Tosteson A. Cost-effectiveness of unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty in elderly low-demand patients. A Markov decision analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;88:2348–55. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200611000-00005 doi: 10.2106/00004623-200611000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed]
  39. Costa CR, Johnson AJ, Mont MA, Bonutti PM. Unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty in the same patient. J Knee Surg 2011;24:273–8. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1280970 doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1280970. [DOI] [PubMed]
  40. Sun PF, Jia YH. Mobile bearing UKA compared to fixed bearing TKA: a randomized prospective study. Knee 2012;19:103–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2011.01.006 doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2011.01.006. [DOI] [PubMed]
  41. Kulshrestha V, Datta B, Kumar S, Mittal G. Outcome of Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty vs Total Knee Arthroplasty for Early Medial Compartment Arthritis: A Randomized Study. J Arthroplasty 2017;32:1460–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.12.014 doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.12.014. [DOI] [PubMed]
  42. ClinicalTrials.gov. Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty (UKA) Versus Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) of Medial Osteoarthritis. URL: www.ClinicalTrials.gov/show/ NCT03457051 (accessed December 2018).
  43. ClinicalTrials.gov. Finnish Unicompartmental and Total Knee Arthroplasty Investigation (FUNCTION). URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/ NCT02481427 (accessed 18 December 2018).
  44. ClinicalTrials.gov. Medial Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty vs Total Knee Arthroplasty. URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/ NCT03396640 (accessed December 2018).
  45. ClinicalTrials.gov. Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty Versus Total Knee Arthroplasty in Patients With Anteromedial Osteoarthritis of the Knee. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/ NCT02430129 (accessed March 2020).
  46. ClinicalTrials.gov. Unicondylar- or Total Knee Replacement? Patient Satisfaction, Function and Muscle Mass. URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/ NCT02563756 (accessed December 2018).
  47. Arirachakaran A, Choowit P, Putananon C, Muangsiri S, Kongtharvonskul J. Is unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) superior to total knee arthroplasty (TKA)? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2015;25:799–806. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-015-1610-9 doi: 10.1007/s00590-015-1610-9. [DOI] [PubMed]
  48. Schwab PE, Lavand’homme P, Yombi JC, Thienpont E. Lower blood loss after unicompartmental than total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2015;23:3494–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3188-x doi: 10.1007/s00167-014-3188-x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  49. Siman H, Kamath AF, Carrillo N, Harmsen WS, Pagnano MW, Sierra RJ. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty vs total knee arthroplasty for medial compartment arthritis in patients older than 75 years: comparable reoperation, revision, and complication rates. J Arthroplasty 2017;32:1792–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.01.020 doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.01.020. [DOI] [PubMed]
  50. Bolognesi MP, Greiner MA, Attarian DE, Watters TS, Wellman SS, Curtis LH, et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty among Medicare beneficiaries, 2000 to 2009. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013;95:e174. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.00652 doi: 10.2106/JBJS.L.00652. [DOI] [PubMed]
  51. Duchman KR, Gao Y, Pugely AJ, Martin CT, Callaghan JJ. Differences in short-term complications between unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty: a propensity score matched analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014;96:1387–94. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.M.01048 doi: 10.2106/JBJS.M.01048. [DOI] [PubMed]
  52. Drager J, Hart A, Khalil JA, Zukor DJ, Bergeron SG, Antoniou J. Shorter hospital stay and lower 30-day readmission after unicondylar knee arthroplasty compared to total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2016;31:356–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.09.014 doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.09.014. [DOI] [PubMed]
  53. Burn E, Liddle AD, Hamilton TW, Pai S, Pandit HG, Murray DW, Pinedo-Villanueva R. Choosing between unicompartmental and total knee replacement: what can economic evaluations tell us? A systematic review. Pharmacoecon Open 2017;1:241–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-017-0017-4 doi: 10.1007/s41669-017-0017-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  54. Burn E, Liddle AD, Hamilton TW, Judge A, Pandit HG, Murray DW, Pinedo-Villanueva R. Cost-effectiveness of unicompartmental compared with total knee replacement: a population-based study using data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. BMJ Open 2018;8:e020977. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020977 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020977. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  55. Wiik AV, Aqil A, Tankard S, Amis AA, Cobb JP. Downhill walking gait pattern discriminates between types of knee arthroplasty: improved physiological knee functionality in UKA versus TKA. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2015;23:1748–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3240-x doi: 10.1007/s00167-014-3240-x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  56. Fabre-Aubrespy M, Ollivier M, Pesenti S, Parratte S, Argenson JN. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients older than 75 results in better clinical outcomes and similar survivorship compared to total knee arthroplasty. A matched controlled study. J Arthroplasty 2016;31:2668–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.06.034 doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.06.034. [DOI] [PubMed]
  57. Lum ZC, Lombardi AV, Hurst JM, Morris MJ, Adams JB, Berend KR. Early outcomes of twin-peg mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compared with primary total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(Suppl. 10):28–33. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B10.BJJ-2016-0414.R1 doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B10.BJJ-2016-0414.R1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  58. Zuiderbaan HA, van der List JP, Khamaisy S, Nawabi DH, Thein R, Ishmael C, et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty: which type of artificial joint do patients forget? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017;25:681–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3868-1 doi: 10.1007/s00167-015-3868-1. [DOI] [PubMed]
  59. Burn E, Sanchez-Santos MT, Pandit HG, Hamilton TW, Liddle AD, Murray DW, Pinedo-Villanueva R. Ten-year patient-reported outcomes following total and minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a propensity score-matched cohort analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2018;26:1455–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4404-7 doi: 10.1007/s00167-016-4404-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  60. Kim MS, Koh IJ, Choi YJ, Lee JY, In Y. Differences in patient-reported outcomes between unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasties: a propensity score-matched analysis. J Arthroplasty 2017;32:1453–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.11.034 doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.11.034. [DOI] [PubMed]
  61. Liddle AD, Judge A, Pandit H, Murray DW. Adverse outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee replacement in 101,330 matched patients: a study of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet 2014;384:1437–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60419-0 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60419-0. [DOI] [PubMed]
  62. Chawla H, van der List JP, Christ AB, Sobrero MR, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD. Annual revision rates of partial versus total knee arthroplasty: a comparative meta-analysis. Knee 2017;24:179–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2016.11.006 doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2016.11.006. [DOI] [PubMed]
  63. Migliorini F, Tingart M, Niewiera M, Rath B, Eschweiler J. Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty for knee osteoarthritis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2019;29:947–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-018-2358-9 doi: 10.1007/s00590-018-2358-9. [DOI] [PubMed]
  64. Cook JA, Elders A, Boachie C, Bassinga T, Fraser C, Altman DG, et al. A systematic review of the use of an expertise-based randomised controlled trial design. Trials 2015;16:241. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0739-5 doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-0739-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  65. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998;80:63–9. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.80b1.7859 doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.80b1.7859. [DOI] [PubMed]
  66. Beard DJ, Harris K, Dawson J, Doll H, Murray DW, Carr AJ, Price AJ. Meaningful changes for the Oxford hip and knee scores after joint replacement surgery. J Clin Epidemiol 2015;68:73–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.08.009 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.08.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  67. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989;248:13–14. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-198911000-00004 doi: 10.1097/00003086-198911000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed]
  68. Martimbianco AL, Calabrese FR, Iha LA, Petrilli M, Lira Neto O, Carneiro Filho M. Reliability of the ‘American Knee Society Score’ (AKSS). Acta Ortop Bras 2012;20:34–8. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-78522012000100007 doi: 10.1590/S1413-78522012000100007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  69. Zahiri CA, Schmalzried TP, Szuszczewicz ES, Amstutz HC. Assessing activity in joint replacement patients. J Arthroplasty 1998;13:890–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-5403(98)90195-4 doi: 10.1016/S0883-5403(98)90195-4. [DOI] [PubMed]
  70. Talbot S, Hooper G, Stokes A, Zordan R. Use of a new high-activity arthroplasty score to assess function of young patients with total hip or knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2010;25:268–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2008.09.019 doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2008.09.019. [DOI] [PubMed]
  71. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996;37:53–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6 doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6. [DOI] [PubMed]
  72. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997;35:1095–108. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002 doi: 10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  73. Robertsson O, Dunbar M, Pehrsson T, Knutson K, Lidgren L. Patient satisfaction after knee arthroplasty: a report on 27,372 knees operated on between 1981 and 1995 in Sweden. Acta Orthop Scand 2000;71:262–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/000164700317411852 doi: 10.1080/000164700317411852. [DOI] [PubMed]
  74. Dawson J, Beard DJ, McKibbin H, Harris K, Jenkinson C, Price AJ. Development of a patient-reported outcome measure of activity and participation (the OKS-APQ) to supplement the Oxford knee score. Bone Joint J 2014;96–B:332–8. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.96B3.32845 doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.96B3.32845. [DOI] [PubMed]
  75. Murray DW, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, Pandit H, Beard DJ, Carr AJ, Dawson J. The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007;89:1010–14. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.89B8.19424 doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.89B8.19424. [DOI] [PubMed]
  76. Cook JA, Ramsay CR, Fayers P. Statistical evaluation of learning curve effects in surgical trials. Clin Trials 2004;1:421–7. https://doi.org/10.1191/1740774504cn042oa doi: 10.1191/1740774504cn042oa. [DOI] [PubMed]
  77. Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). NHS Reference Costs 2016 to 2017. London: DHSC; 2017. URL: https://improvement.nhs.uk/resources/reference-costs/#archive (accessed September 2018).
  78. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2017. Canterbury: PSSRU, University of Kent; 2017.
  79. Information Services Division (ISD). Scottish Health Service Costs. Edinburgh: ISD; 2018. URL: www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Finance/Publications/2018-11-20/2018-11-20-Costs-Report.pdf (accessed September 2018).
  80. Stokes EA, Wordsworth S, Staves J, Mundy N, Skelly J, Radford K, Stanworth SJ. Accurate costs of blood transfusion: a microcosting of administering blood products in the United Kingdom National Health Service. Transfusion 2018;58:846–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/trf.14493 doi: 10.1111/trf.14493. [DOI] [PubMed]
  81. World Health Organization (WHO). International Classification of Diseases. 10th edn. Geneva: WHO; 2016.
  82. NHS Digital. Costing – HRG4+ 2016/17. Reference Costs Grouper. 2018. URL: https://digital.nhs.uk/services/national-casemix-office/downloads-groupers-and-tools/grouper-and-tools-archive/costing-hrg4-2016-17-reference-costs-grouper (accessed September 2018).
  83. NHS Improvement. Reference Costs 2017/18: Highlights, Analysis and Introduction to the Data. 2018. URL: https://improvement.nhs.uk/documents/1972/1_-_Reference_costs_201718.pdf (accessed September 2018).
  84. Leal J, Manetti S, Buchanan J. The impact of hospital costing methods on cost-effectiveness analysis: a case study. PharmacoEconomics 2018;36:1263–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0673-y doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0673-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  85. Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. OPCS Classification of Surgical Operations and Procedures, Fourth Revision. Leeds: NHS Digital; 1992.
  86. Faria R, Gomes M, Epstein D, White IR. A guide to handling missing data in cost-effectiveness analysis conducted within randomised controlled trials. PharmacoEconomics 2014;32:1157–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0193-3 doi: 10.1007/s40273-014-0193-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  87. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013. London: NICE; 2013. URL: www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/chapter/foreword (accessed September 2018). [PubMed]
  88. Fenwick E, O’Brien BJ, Briggs A. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves – facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions. Health Econ 2004;13:405–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.903 doi: 10.1002/hec.903. [DOI] [PubMed]
  89. Skou ST, Roos EM, Laursen MB, Rathleff MS, Arendt-Nielsen L, Simonsen O, Rasmussen S. A randomized, controlled trial of total knee replacement. N Engl J Med 2015;373:1597–606. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1505467 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1505467. [DOI] [PubMed]
  90. Liddle AD, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray DW. Patient-reported outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study of 14,076 matched patients from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Bone Joint J 2015;97–B:793–801. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B6.35155 doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.97B6.35155. [DOI] [PubMed]
  91. Wilson HA, Middleton R, Abram SGF, Smith S, Alvand A, Jackson WF, et al. Patient relevant outcomes of unicompartmental versus total knee replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2019;364:l352. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l352 doi: 10.1136/bmj.l352. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  92. Hunt LP, Ben-Shlomo Y, Clark EM, Dieppe P, Judge A, MacGregor AJ, et al. 45-day mortality after 467,779 knee replacements for osteoarthritis from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales: an observational study. Lancet 2014;384:1429–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60540-7 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60540-7. [DOI] [PubMed]
  93. Rothwell AG, Hooper GJ, Hobbs A, Frampton CM. An analysis of the Oxford hip and knee scores and their relationship to early joint revision in the New Zealand Joint Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010;92:413–18. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.92B3.22913 doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.92B3.22913. [DOI] [PubMed]
  94. Zhang Q, Zhang Q, Guo W, Liu Z, Cheng L, Yue D, Zhang N. The learning curve for minimally invasive Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: cumulative summation test for learning curve (LC-CUSUM). J Orthop Surg Res 2014;9:81. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-014-0081-8 doi: 10.1186/s13018-014-0081-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  95. Liddle AD, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray DW. Optimal usage of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study of 41,986 cases from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Bone Joint J 2015;97–B:1506–11. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B11.35551 doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.97B11.35551. [DOI] [PubMed]
  96. Liddle AD, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray DW. Effect of surgical caseload on revision rate following total and unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016;98:1–8. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.N.00487 doi: 10.2106/JBJS.N.00487. [DOI] [PubMed]
  97. Baker P, Jameson S, Critchley R, Reed M, Gregg P, Deehan D. Center and surgeon volume influence the revision rate following unicondylar knee replacement: an analysis of 23,400 medial cemented unicondylar knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013;95:702–9. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.00520 doi: 10.2106/JBJS.L.00520. [DOI] [PubMed]
  98. Reilly KA, Beard DJ, Barker KL, Dodd CA, Price AJ, Murray DW. Efficacy of an accelerated recovery protocol for Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty – a randomised controlled trial. Knee 2005;12:351–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2005.01.002 doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2005.01.002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  99. Liddle AD, Judge A, Pandit H, Murray DW. Determinants of revision and functional outcome following unicompartmental knee replacement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2014;22:1241–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2014.07.006 doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2014.07.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  100. Hobbs FDR, Bankhead C, Mukhtar T, Stevens S, Perera-Salazar R, Holt T, Salisbury C, National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research. Clinical workload in UK primary care: a retrospective analysis of 100 million consultations in England, 2007–14. Lancet 2016;387:2323–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00620-6 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00620-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  101. The Information Centre, Primary Care Statistics. 2006/07 UK General Practice Workload Survey. Leeds: Department of Health and Social Care; 2007.
  102. National Joint Registry. National Joint Registry for England and Wales: 9th Annual Report. 2012. Prostheses Used in Hip, Knee, Ankle, Elbow and Shoulder Replacement Procedures 2011. URL: www.njrcentre.org.uk/njrcentre/Portals/0/Documents/England/Reports/Prostheses%20used%20in%20hip%20knee%20and%20ankle%20replacements%202011.pdf (accessed November 2018).
  103. National Joint Registry. National Joint Registry for England and Wales: 11th Annual Report. 2014. Prostheses Used in Hip, Knee, Ankle, Elbow and Shoulder Replacement Procedures 2013. URL: www.njrcentre.org.uk/njrcentre/Portals/0/Documents/England/Reports/11th_annual_report/NJR%2011th%20AR%20Prostheses%20used%20in%20hip,%20knee,%20ankle,%20elbow%20and%20shoulder%20replacements%202013.pdf (accessed November 2018).
  104. National Joint Registry. National Joint Registry For England And Wales: 10th Annual Report. 2013. Prostheses Used in Hip, Knee, Ankle, Elbow and Shoulder Replacement Procedures 2012. URL: www.njrcentre.org.uk/njrcentre/Portals/0/Documents/England/Reports/10th_annual_report/NJR%20Prostheses%20used%20in%20hip,%20knee,%20ankle,%20shoulder%20and%20elbow%20replacements%202012.pdf (accessed November 2018).
  105. National Joint Registry. National Joint Registry For England And Wales: 8th Annual Report. 2011. Prostheses Used in Hip, Knee, Ankle, Elbow and Shoulder Replacement Procedures 2010. URL: www.njrcentre.org.uk/njrcentre/Portals/0/Documents/England/Reports/Prostheses%20used%20in%20hip%20knee%20and%20ankle%20replacements%202010.pdf (accessed November 2018).

RESOURCES