HSS Journal ®

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 125–129 | Cite as

Two Year Follow-up of the Preservation Unicompartmental Knee Implant

  • Rajeev K. Jain
  • Lorraine T. Neville
  • Kace A. Ezzet
  • Robert S. Sterling
  • Raymond L. Horwood
  • Clifford W. ColwellJr.Email author
Original Article


Reported results of unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) have mixed reviews in comparison with results of tri-compartmental knee arthroplasty (TKA). We prospectively evaluated the short-term results (2 years) of a newer design of a UKA implant (Preservation UKA) with a cobalt–chromium femoral component and an all polyethylene tibial component. Seventy-two patients with intact ligaments and loss of only medial articular cartilage received the Preservation prosthesis. Data were obtained using WOMAC, Knee Society score (KSS), and standard radiographs. WOMAC scores improved by 24 points and KSS improved by 33 points at 2-year follow-up. Mean flexion increased by 4° to126° at 2 years. On X-ray, only one patient had a radiolucency. No fractures occurred. Two knees were revised due to clinical symptoms of medial compartment pain. This 2-year follow-up study of the Preservation UKA shows promising early results. Long-term data would be necessary to compare results with TKA or other unicompartmental replacements.


preservation implant unicondylar knee arthroplasty 


  1. 1.
    Rand J, Riggi K. (2001). Results of posterior cruciate-preserving total knee arthroplasty. In J. Insall & W. Scott (Eds.), Surgery of the knee (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1629–1659). Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clarke H D, Scuderi G R. (2001). Revision total knee arthroplasty: Planning, management, controversies, and surgical approaches. Instr Course Lect, 50, 359–365PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Font-Rodriguez D E, Scuderi G R, Insall J N. (1997). Survivorship of cemented total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 345(345), 79–86Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rodricks D J, Patil S, Pulido P, Colwell C W, Jr. (2007). Press-fit condylar design total knee arthroplasty. Fourteen to seventeen-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 89(1), 89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Insall J, Walker P. (1976). Unicondylar knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 120(120), 83–85Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Laskin R S. (1978). Unicompartmental tibiofemoral resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 60(2), 182–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Laskin R S. (2001). Unicompartmental knee replacement: Some unanswered questions. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 392(392), 267–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Berger R A, Nedeff D D, Barden R M, Sheinkop M M, Jacobs J J, Rosenberg A G, Galante J O. (1999). Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clinical experience at 6 to 10 year followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 367(367), 50–60Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Murray D W, Goodfellow J W, O’Connor J J. (1998). The oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: A ten-year survival study. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 80(6), 983–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ewald F. (1989). The knee society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 248(248), 9–12Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Swank M, Stulberg S D, Jiganti J, Machairas S. (1993). The natural history of unicompartmental arthroplasty. An eight-year follow-up study with survivorship analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 286(286), 130–142Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Berry D J. (2004). Recognizing and identifying osteolysis around total knee arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect, 53, 261–264PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rougraff B T, Heck D A, Gibson A E. (1991). A comparison of tricompartmental and unicompartmental arthroplasty for the treatment of gonarthrosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 273(273), 157–164Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Patil S, Colwell C W, Jr., Ezzet K A, D’Lima D D. (2005). Can normal knee kinematics be restored with unicompartmental knee replacement? J Bone Joint Surg Am, 87(2), 332–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Insall J, Aglietti P. (1980). A five to seven-year follow-up of unicondylar arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 62(8), 1329–1337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Borus T, Thornhill T. (2008). Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 16(1), 9–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Berger R A, Meneghini R M, Jacobs J J, Sheinkop M B, Della Valle C J, Rosenberg A G, Galante J O. (2005). Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum of ten years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 87(5), 999–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McAllister C M. (2008). The role of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty in providing maximal performance and satisfaction. J Knee Surg, 21(4), 286–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yang K Y, Yeo S J, Lo N N. (2003). Stress fracture of the medial tibial plateau after minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: A report of 2 cases. J Arthroplasty, 18(6), 801–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brumby S A, Carrington R, Zayontz S, Reish T, Scott R D. (2003). Tibial plateau stress fracture: A complication of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using 4 guide pinholes. J Arthroplasty, 18(6), 809–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rudol G, Jackson M P, James S E. (2007). Medial tibial plateau fracture complicating unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty, 22(1), 148–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Hospital for Special Surgery 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rajeev K. Jain
    • 1
  • Lorraine T. Neville
    • 2
  • Kace A. Ezzet
    • 3
  • Robert S. Sterling
    • 4
  • Raymond L. Horwood
    • 5
  • Clifford W. ColwellJr.
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Midwest Orthopaedic Institute SCSycamoreUSA
  2. 2.Shiley Center for Orthopaedic Research & Education at Scripps ClinicLa JollaUSA
  3. 3.Scripps ClinicLa JollaUSA
  4. 4.University of Maryland Affiliated HospitalsBaltimoreUSA
  5. 5.Fairview General & Lakewood HospitalClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations