Abstract
Background:
For patients with isolated medial knee arthritis, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is an appealing surgical option. Compared with total knee arthroplasty (TKA), UKA is less invasive, preserves more native bone stock, has lower perioperative morbidity and mortality1,2, allows for quicker recovery1,2, and has higher patient satisfaction2,3. It also allows for more dynamic proprioception and postural control, allowing for function more similar to a native knee4. Proper surgical technique and patient selection are critical to the growing success of UKA.
Description:
The general principles of UKA are to remove and replace the diseased femoral and tibial joint surfaces while restoring limb alignment. The key steps of this procedure are demonstrated in the video article: (1) patient evaluation, (2) patient positioning, (3) surgical exposure, (4) tibial guide placement and resection, (5) femoral guide placement and resection, (6) knee balancing and implant trialing, (7) preventing impingement, (8) final tibial preparation, (9) final component placement, and (10) closure and postoperative course.
Alternatives:
Patients should first exhaust all nonoperative treatments before considering UKA. For those patients who do not meet the appropriate indications for UKA, TKA is the most acceptable alternative treatment. In active patients <55 years old without bone-on-bone osteoarthritis, a high tibial osteotomy may be considered. When considering UKA, options include both mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing designs.
Rationale:
The potential advantages of UKA over TKA make it an attractive option for the appropriate patient. Recently, indications for UKA have expanded to include (1) isolated noninflammatory bone-on-bone arthritis in the medial compartment; (2) retained full-thickness cartilage in the lateral compartment, best visualized on valgus-stress radiographs; (3) a functionally normal medial collateral ligament; and (4) a functionally normal anterior cruciate ligament5. Mobile-bearing UKA designs consist of a dual articulation between the concave polyethylene insert and the metallic tibial and spherical femoral components, which allows for distribution of contact forces over a large surface area6. In contrast, fixed-bearing designs have a flat polyethylene insert that does not conform to the femur. Current data do not demonstrate a clear difference in clinical performance between the 2 bearings. However, a recent systematic review has shown lower polyethylene wear rates in mobile-bearing implants7.
Expected Outcomes:
The survivorship of mobile-bearing UKA ranges from 85% to 98% at 10 years8-12 and from 79% to 94% at 15 years8,13,14. The most common indications for revision include aseptic loosening (36%), progression of osteoarthritis (20%), and unexplained pain (11%)7. Bearing dislocation is a unique complication for mobile-bearing UKAs, with reported rates between 0.3% to 4.2%6,10,12.
Important Tips:
Always inspect all compartments of the knee for evidence of substantial degenerative changes prior to proceeding with UKA. If there is advanced arthritis in other compartments, the decision should be made to proceed with TKA instead. Therefore, preoperatively, all patients indicated for UKA should also sign a consent form for TKA, and TKA implants should be available in case they are needed.
When assessing bearing size, it is important that there is no axial loading through the heel to properly assess the flexion gap. Intraoperatively, this can be done by elevating the thigh so that the foot hangs freely. The trial spoon should fit into the joint without substantial resistance or effort.
Spigots do not reference the end of the bone. Rather, they reference the end of the spigot hole that was drilled using the initial 0 spigot.
Spigot number represents the total thickness of additional bone that will be removed from the first mill cut.
Confirm the amount of bone that was resected by inspecting the small rim of bone that remains around the spigot hole after milling.
Published outcomes of this procedure can be found at: Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B (11):1493-500.
Investigation performed at the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford Hospital and Clinics, Redwood City, California
Disclosure: The authors indicated that no external funding was received for any aspect of this work. On the Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms, which are provided with the online version of the article, one or more of the authors checked “yes” to indicate that the author had a relevant financial relationship in the biomedical arena outside the submitted work (http://links.lww.com/JBJSEST/A333).
Contributor Information
Andrew A. Barrett, Email: andrewbarrett18@gmail.com.
Derek F. Amanatullah, Email: dfa@stanford.edu.
References
- 1.Lim JW, Cousins GR, Clift BA, Ridley D, Johnston LR. Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus age and gender matched total knee arthroplasty - functional outcome and survivorship analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2014 Sep;29(9):1779-83. Epub 2014 Apr 5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Lombardi AV, Jr, Berend KR, Walter CA, Aziz-Jacobo J, Cheney NA. Is recovery faster for mobile-bearing unicompartmental than total knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009 Jun;467(6):1450-7. Epub 2009 Feb 19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Lyons MC, MacDonald SJ, Somerville LE, Naudie DD, McCalden RW. Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty database analysis: is there a winner? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Jan;470(1):84-90. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.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 Jun;14(3):212-7. Epub 2007 Mar 6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Hamilton TW, Pandit HG, Jenkins C, Mellon SJ, Dodd CAF, Murray DW. Evidence-based indications for mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in a consecutive cohort of thousand knees. J Arthroplasty. 2017 Jun;32(6):1779-85. Epub 2016 Dec 27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Parratte S, Pauly V, Aubaniac JM, Argenson JNA. No long-term difference between fixed and mobile medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Jan;470(1):61-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.van der List JP, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD. Why do medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties fail today? J Arthroplasty. 2016 May;31(5):1016-21. Epub 2015 Dec 7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.The Australian National Joint Replacement Registry. Annual Report 2015. https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/documents/10180/217745/Hip+and+Knee+Arthroplasty. Accessed March 11, 2021 [Google Scholar]
- 9.Emerson RH, Alnachoukati O, Barrington J, Ennin K. The results of Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the United States: a mean ten-year survival analysis. Bone Joint J. 2016 Oct;98-B(10)(Supple B):34-40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Faour-Martín O, Valverde-García JA, Martín-Ferrero MÁ, Vega-Castrillo A, de la Red Gallego MA, Suárez de Puga CC, Amigo-Liñares L. Oxford Phase 3 unicondylar knee arthroplasty through a minimally invasive approach: long-term results. Int Orthop. 2013 May;37(5):833-8. Epub 2013 Mar 17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Biau DJ, Greidanus NV, Garbuz DS, Masri BA. No difference in quality-of-life outcomes after mobile and fixed-bearing medial unicompartmental knee replacement. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28:220-226e1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Kim KT, Lee S, Kim JH, Hong SW, Jung WS, Shin WS. The survivorship and clinical results of minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at 10-year follow-up. Clin Orthop Surg. 2015 Jun;7(2):199-206. Epub 2015 May 18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Pandit H, Hamilton TW, Jenkins C, Mellon SJ, Dodd CAF, Murray DW. The clinical outcome of minimally invasive Phase 3 Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a 15-year follow-up of 1000 UKAs. Bone Joint J. 2015 Nov;97-B(11):1493-500. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Mercier N, Wimsey S, Saragaglia D. Long-term clinical results of the Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2010 Dec;34(8):1137-43. Epub 2009 Oct 17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
