A Matched Comparison of Long-Term Outcomes of Total and Unicompartmental Knee Replacements in Different Ages Based on National Databases: Analysis of Data From the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man

Published:October 04, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2021.09.018

      Abstract

      Background

      The 2 main treatment options for end-stage single compartment knee arthritis are unicompartmental (UKR) or total knee replacement (TKR). We compared the long-term outcomes in different age groups.

      Methods

      In total, 54,215 UKRs and 54,215 TKRs from the National Joint Registry and Hospital Episode Statistics database were propensity score matched and Kaplan-Meier and regression analysis used to compare revision, reoperation, mortality, and 3-month complications.

      Results

      UKR had higher 10-year revision rates (12% vs 5%, hazard ratio [HR] 2.31, P < .001) and 10-year reoperation rates (25% vs 21%, HR 1.12, P < .001). UKR had lower 10-year mortality rates (13.6% vs 15.5%, HR 0.86, P < .001). UKR had lower rates of medical (P < .001) and procedure related (P < .001) complications and deaths (HR 0.61, P = .02). If 100 patients had a UKR instead of a TKR then over 10 years, if they were <55 years old there would be 7 more reoperations and 1 less death; if they were 55-64 years old there would be 6 more reoperations and 2 more deaths; if they were 65-74 years old there would be 4 more reoperations and 2 less deaths; and if they were ≥75 years old there would be 3 more reoperations and 4 less deaths.

      Conclusion

      UKR has higher revision and slightly higher reoperation rates but lower mortality rates than matched TKR. The decision to do a UKR should, in part, be based on the balance of these risks, which are influenced by patient age. In the elderly group (>75 years) the data suggests that UKR compared to TKR has a greater absolute reduction in mortality than the increase in reoperation rate.

      Levels of evidence

      III.

      Keywords

      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

        • Price A.J.
        • Alvand A.
        • Troelsen A.
        • Katz J.N.
        • Hooper G.
        • Gray A.
        • et al.
        Knee replacement.
        Lancet. 2018; 392: 1672-1682
        • Willis-Owen C.A.
        • Brust K.
        • Alsop H.
        • Miraldo M.
        • Cobb J.
        Unicondylar knee arthroplasty in the UK National Health Service: an analysis of candidacy, outcome and cost efficacy.
        Knee. 2009; 16: 473-478
        • National Joint Registry
        National Joint Registry 18th Annual Report. National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Isle of Man.
        National Joint Registry, 2021 ([accessed 17.10.21])
        • Liddle A.D.
        • Judge A.
        • Pandit H.
        • Murray D.W.
        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: 1437-1445
        • Liddle A.
        • Pandit H.
        • Judge A.
        • Murray D.
        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: 793-801
        • Burn E.
        • Liddle A.D.
        • Hamilton T.W.
        • Judge A.
        • Pandit H.G.
        • Murray D.W.
        • et al.
        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
        • Australian Orthopaedic Association
        Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) 20th Annual Report.
        Hip Knee Shoulder Arthroplasty. 2019; ([accessed 17.10.21])
        • The New Zealand Joint Registry
        Twenty Year Report January 1999 to December 2018. New Zealand Joint Registry.
        New Zealand Orthopaedic Association, 2019 ([accessed 17.10.21])
        • NHS Digital
        Hospital admitted patient care activity 2019-20.
        in: NHS Digital. 2020 ([accessed 4.10.2020])
        • Mohammad H.R.
        • Matharu G.S.
        • Judge A.
        • Murray D.W.
        Comparison of the 10-year outcomes of cemented and cementless unicompartmental knee replacements: data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man.
        Acta Orthop. 2020; 91: 76-81
        • Mohammad H.R.
        • Matharu G.S.
        • Judge A.
        • Murray D.W.
        The effect of surgeon caseload on the relative revision rate of cemented and cementless unicompartmental knee replacements: an analysis from the national joint registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020; 102: 644-653
        • Liddle A.D.
        • Pandit H.
        • Judge A.
        • Murray D.W.
        Effect of surgical caseload on revision rate following total and unicompartmental knee replacement.
        J Bone Surg Am. 2016; 98: 1-8
        • Matharu G.S.
        • Judge A.
        • Murray D.W.
        • Pandit H.G.
        Trabecular metal acetabular components reduce the risk of revision following primary total hip arthroplasty: a propensity score matched study from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales.
        J Arthroplasty. 2018; 33: 447-452
        • Matharu G.S.
        • Judge A.
        • Murray D.W.
        • Pandit H.G.
        Outcomes after metal-on-metal hip revision surgery depend on the reason for failure: a propensity score-matched study.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018; 476: 245-258
        • Austin P.C.
        Some methods of propensity-score matching had superior performance to others: results of an empirical investigation and Monte Carlo simulations.
        Biom J. 2009; 51: 171-184
        • Austin P.C.
        Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples.
        Stat Med. 2009; 28: 3083-3107
        • Ahmed H.
        • Naik G.
        • Willoughby H.
        • Edwards A.G.
        Communicating risk.
        BMJ. 2012; 344
        • Kennedy J.A.
        • Mellon S.J.
        • Lombardi A.V.
        • Berend K.R.
        • Hamilton T.W.
        • Murray D.W.
        Candidacy for medial unicompartmental knee replacement declines with age.
        Orthop Traumatol Res. 2020; 106: 443-447
        • Hunt L.P.
        • Blom A.W.
        • Matharu G.S.
        • Kunutsor S.K.
        • Beswick A.D.
        • Wilkinson J.M.
        • et al.
        Patients receiving a primary unicompartmental knee replacement have a higher risk of revision but a lower risk of mortality than predicted had they received a total knee replacement: data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man.
        J Arthroplasty. 2021; 36: 471-477
        • Wilson H.A.
        • Middleton R.
        • Abram S.G.
        • Smith S.
        • Alvand A.
        • Jackson W.F.
        • et al.
        Patient relevant outcomes of unicompartmental versus total knee replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis.
        BMJ. 2019; 364: l352