Patient, Implant, and Alignment Factors Associated With Revision of Medial Compartment Unicondylar Arthroplasty

      Abstract

      The investigators reviewed 245 fixed-bearing unicondylar arthroplasties that one surgeon performed as treatment of medial compartment osteoarthritis between 1988 and 1997 using a variety of cemented metal-backed tibial components and gamma-irradiated-in-air polyethylene bearings. Multivariate statistical analysis was used to evaluate how the event of revision was influenced by 3 patient factors, 3 implant factors, and 7 factors assessed from preoperative and early postoperative radiographs. Five factors were statistically associated with revision: (younger) patient age, (thinner) tibial component initial thickness, (longer) polyethylene shelf age, (lesser) angular reduction of medial tibial plateau varus, and (more varus) postoperative hip-knee-ankle angle. Besides illustrating deleterious consequences of using gamma-irradiated-in-air polyethylene in medial unicompartmental arthroplasty, our results support reducing varus angulation of the medial tibial plateau and knee at surgery.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic and Personal
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to The Journal of Arthroplasty
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Kozinn S.C.
        • Scott R.
        Unicondylar knee arthroplasty.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989; 71: 145
        • Kozinn S.C.
        • Marx C.
        • Scott R.D.
        Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a 4.5-6-year follow-up study with a metal-backed tibial component.
        J Arthroplasty. 1989; 4: S1
        • Robertsson O.
        • Knutson K.
        • Lewold S.
        • et al.
        The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register 1975-1997: an update with special emphasis on 41,223 knees operated on in 1988-1997.
        Acta Orthop Scand. 2001; 72: 503
        • Perkins T.R.
        • Gunckle W.
        Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: 3- to 10-year results in a community hospital setting.
        J Arthroplasty. 2002; 17: 293
        • Collier M.B.
        • Engh Jr, C.A.
        • Engh G.A.
        Shelf age of the polyethylene tibial component and outcome of unicondylar knee arthroplasty.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 86: 763
        • Barrett W.P.
        • Scott R.D.
        Revision of failed unicondylar unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987; 69: 1328
        • Marmor L.
        Unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee with a minimum ten-year follow-up period.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988; 228: 171
        • Heck D.A.
        • Marmor L.
        • Gibson A.
        • et al.
        Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a multicenter investigation with long-term follow-up evaluation.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993; 286: 154
        • Marmor L.
        The Modular (Marmor) knee: case report with a minimum follow-up of 2 years.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976; 120: 86
        • McCallum III, J.D.
        • Scott R.D.
        Duplication of medial erosion in unicompartmental knee arthroplasties.
        J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995; 77: 726
        • Palmer S.H.
        • Morrison P.J.
        • Ross A.C.
        Early catastrophic tibial component wear after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998; 350: 143
        • McGovern T.F.
        • Ammeen D.J.
        • Collier J.P.
        • et al.
        Rapid polyethylene failure of unicondylar tibial components sterilized with gamma irradiation in air and implanted after a long shelf life.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002; 84: 901
        • Kennedy W.R.
        • White R.P.
        Unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee: postoperative alignment and its influence on overall results.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987; 221: 278
        • Hernigou P.
        • Deschamps G.
        Posterior slope of the tibial implant and the outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 86: 506
        • Emerson Jr, R.H.
        • Hansborough T.
        • Reitman R.D.
        • et al.
        Comparison of a mobile with a fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee implant.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002; 404: 62
        • Gioe T.J.
        • Killeen K.K.
        • Hoeffel D.P.
        • et al.
        Analysis of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in a community-based implant registry.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003; 416: 111
        • Argenson J.N.
        • Chevrol-Benkeddache Y.
        • Aubaniac J.M.
        Modern unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cement: a three to ten-year follow-up study.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002; 84: 2235
        • Pennington D.W.
        • Swienckowski J.J.
        • Lutes W.B.
        • et al.
        Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients sixty years of age or younger.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003; 85: 1968
        • Naudie D.
        • Guerin J.
        • Parker D.A.
        • et al.
        Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with the Miller-Galante prosthesis.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 86: 1931
        • Berger R.A.
        • Meneghini R.M.
        • Jacobs J.J.
        • et al.
        Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum of ten years of follow-up.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87: 999
        • Schai P.A.
        • Suh J.T.
        • Thornhill T.S.
        • et al.
        Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in middle-aged patients: a 2- to 6-year follow-up evaluation.
        J Arthroplasty. 1998; 13: 365
        • Swank M.
        • Stulberg S.D.
        • Jiganti J.
        • et al.
        The natural history of unicompartmental arthroplasty: an eight-year follow-up study with survivorship analysis.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993; 286: 130
        • Bartley R.E.
        • Stulberg S.D.
        • Robb III, W.J.
        • et al.
        Polyethylene wear in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994; 299: 18
        • Thornhill T.
        • Scott R.
        Unicompartmental total knee arthroplasty.
        Orthop Clin North Am. 1989; 20: 245
        • Hernigou P.
        • Deschamps G.
        Alignment influences wear in the knee after medial unicompartmental arthroplasty.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004; 423: 161
        • Sawatari T.
        • Tsumura H.
        • Iesaka K.
        • et al.
        Three-dimensional finite element analysis of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: the influence of tibial component inclination.
        J Orthop Res. 2005; 23: 549
        • Lindstrand A.
        • Stenstrom A.
        • Ryd L.
        • et al.
        The introduction period of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is critical: a clinical, clinical multicentered, and radiostereometric study of 251 Duracon unicompartmental knee arthroplasties.
        J Arthroplasty. 2000; 15: 608
        • Robertsson O.
        • Knutson K.
        • Lewold S.
        • et al.
        The routine of surgical management reduces failure after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
        J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001; 83: 45
        • Lindstrand A.
        • Stenstrom A.
        • Lewold S.
        Multicenter study of unicompartmental knee revision: PCA, Marmor, and St Georg compared in 3,777 cases of arthrosis.
        Acta Orthop Scand. 1992; 63: 256
        • Berend K.R.
        • Lombardi Jr, A.V.
        • Mallory T.H.
        • et al.
        Early failure of minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is associated with obesity.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005; 440: 60