, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 123–131 | Cite as

La protesi monocompartimentale

  • Fabiano FantasiaEmail author
  • Giacomo Placella

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty


The concept of unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) has been described as early as the 1950’s following the introduction of the MacIntosh and McKeever hemiarthroplasty. With improvements in implant design, patient selection, and surgical technique, there has been an increase in the use of UKA as a less-invasive alternative that offers faster recovery compared to total joint arthroplasty in the treatment of localized symptomatic osteoarthritis. The key points are: the precise indication, which has been perfected over time and with experience, and the improvement of the surgical technique used. These have led to less complications and an increase in the number of implanted UKAs, for both the medialis and the lateral side. The purpose of this article is to analyze what were the changes over time regarding the indications and what are currently the success rates for medial e lateral UKA.


Conflitto di interesse

Gli autori Fabiano Fantasia e Giacomo Placella dichiarano di non avere alcun conflitto di interesse.

Consenso informato e conformità agli standard etici

Tutte le procedure descritte nello studio e che hanno coinvolto esseri umani sono state attuate in conformità alle norme etiche stabilite dalla dichiarazione di Helsinki del 1975 e successive modifiche. Il consenso informato è stato ottenuto da tutti i pazienti inclusi nello studio.

Human and Animal Rights

L’articolo non contiene alcuno studio eseguito su esseri umani e su animali da parte degli autori.


  1. 1.
    MacIntosh DL (1958) Hemiarthroplasty of the knee using a space occupying prosthesis for painful varus and valgus deformities. J Bone Jt Surg, Am 40A:1431 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    McKeever DC (1960) Tibial plateau prosthesis. Clin Orthop 18:86–95 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gunston FH (1971) Polycentric knee arthroplasty. Prosthetic simulation of normal knee movement. J Bone Jt Surg, Br 53(2):272–277 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marmor L (1988) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Ten- to 13-year follow-up study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 226:14–20 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Laskin RS (1978) Unicompartmental tibiofemoral resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg, Am 60(2):182–185 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berger RA, Kusuma SK, Sanders SA et al. (2009) The feasibility and perioperative complications of outpatient knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(6):1443–1449 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ko YB, Gujarathi MR, Oh KJ (2015) Outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of comparative studies between fixed and mobile bearings focusing on complications. Knee Surg Relat Res 27(3):141–148 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Insall J, Aglietti P (1980) A five to seven-year follow-up of unicondylar arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg, Am 62(8):1329–1337 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Confalonieri N, Manzotti A (2013) UKR surgical technique: pearls and pitfalls. In: Confalonieri N, Romagnoli S (eds) Small implants in knee reconstruction. Springer, Milan, pp 43–50 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ridgeway SR, McAuley JP, Ammeen DJ, Engh GA (2002) The effect of alignment of the knee on the outcome of unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Jt Surg, Br 84(03):351–355 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goodfellow J, O’Connor J (1978) The mechanics of the knee and prosthesis design. J Bone Jt Surg, Br 60-B(3):358–369 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Murray DW, Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ (1998) The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a ten-year survival study. J Bone Jt Surg, Br 80(6):983–989 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Isaac SM, Barker KL, Danial IN et al. (2007) Does arthroplasty type influence knee joint proprioception? A longitudinal prospective study comparing total and unicompartmental arthroplasty. Knee 14:21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smith TO, Chester R, Glasgow MM et al. (2012) Accelerated rehabilitation following Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: five-year results from an independent centre. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 22:151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Borus T, Thornhill T (2008) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 16(1):9–18 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jamali AA, Scott RD, Rubash HE, Freiberg AA (2009) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: past, present, and future. Am J Orthop 38(1):17–23 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kozinn SC, Scott R (1989) Unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg, Am 71:145–150 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Beldame J, Bertiaux S, Roussignol X et al. (2011) Laxity measurements using stress radiography to assess anterior cruciate ligament tears. Orthop Traumatol, Surg Res 97(1):34–43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hamilton TW, Pistritto C, Jenkins C et al. (2016) Unicompartmental knee replacement: does the macroscopic status of the anterior cruciate ligament affect outcome? Knee 23(3):506–510 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Knutson K, Lewold S, Robertsson O et al. (1994) The Swedish knee arthroplasty register. A nation-wide study of 30,003 knees 1976–1992. Acta Orthop Scand 65(4):375–386 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Murray DW (2005) Mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement. Orthopedics 28(9):985–987 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weale AE, Murray DW, Crawford R et al. (1999) Does arthritis progress in the retained compartments after “Oxford” medial unicompartmental arthroplasty? A clinical and radiological study with a minimum ten-year follow-up. J Bone Jt Surg, Br 81(5):783–789 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Weale AE, Newman JH (1994) Unicompartmental arthroplasty and high tibial osteotomy for osteoarthrosis of the knee. A comparative study with a 12- to 17-year follow-up period. Clin Orthop Relat Res 302:134–137 Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Faour Martín O, Valverde García JA, Martín Ferrero MV et al. (2015) The young patient and the medial unicompartmental knee replacement. Acta Orthop Belg 81(2):283–288 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zengerink I, Duivenvoorden T, Niesten D et al. (2015) Obesity does not influence the outcome after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Belg 81(4):776–783 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Woo YL, Chen YQ, Lai MC et al. (2017) Does obesity influence early outcome of fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty? J Orthop Surg 25(1):2309499016684297 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zsakai Z, Nadianmehr B, Olah C et al. (2018) Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: correlation between components’ malalignment and long-term outcome in obese patients. Trauma Mon 23(3):e60096 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Brumby SA, Thornhill TS (2001) Unicompartmental osteoarthritis of the knee. In: Laskin RS (ed) Controversies in total knee replacement. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 285–312 Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cartier P, Sanouiller JL, Grelsamer RP (1996) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty surgery: 10-year minimum follow-up period. J Arthroplast 11:782–788 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yoshida K, Tada M, Yoshida H et al. (2013) Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in Japan—clinical results in greater than one thousand cases over ten years. J Arthroplast 28:168 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Saenz CL, McGrath MS, Marker DR et al. (2010) Early failure of a unicompartmental knee arthroplasty design with an all-polyethylene tibial component. Knee 17(1):53–56 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rees JL, Price AJ, Lynskey TG et al. (2001) Medial unicompartmental arthroplasty after failed high tibial osteotomy. J Bone Jt Surg, Br 83(7):1034–1036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dalury DF, Fisher DA, Adams MJ, Gonzales RA (2009) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compares favorably to total knee arthroplasty in the same patient. Orthopedics 32(4):470 Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Newman J, Pydisetty RV, Ackroyd C (2009) Unicompartmental or total knee replacement: the 15-year results of a prospective randomised controlled trial. J Bone Jt Surg, Br 91(1):52–57 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Laurencin CT, Zelicof SB, Scott RD, Ewald FC (1991) Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in the same patient. A comparative study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 273:151–156 Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Alvand A, Khan T, Jenkins C et al. (2017) The impact of patient-specific instrumentation on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomised controlled study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26(6):1662–1670 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mohammad HR, Strickland L, Hamilton TW, Murray DW (2017) Long-term outcomes of over 8,000 medial Oxford Phase 3 unicompartmental knees—a systematic review. Acta Orthop 89(1):101–107 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Badawy M, Fenstad AM, Bartz-Johannessen CA et al. (2017) Hospital volume and the risk of revision in Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the Nordic countries—an observational study of 14,496 cases. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 18(1):388 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Small SR, Berend ME, Ritter MA et al. (2011) Metal backing significantly decreases tibial strains in a medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty model. J Arthroplast 26:777–782 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Walker PS, Parakh DS, Chaudhary ME, Wei CS (2011) Comparison of interface stresses and strains for onlay and inlay unicompartmental tibial components. J Knee Surg 24:109–115 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zambianchi F, Digennaro V, Giorgini A et al. (2014) Surgeon’s experience influences UKA survivorship: a comparative study between all-poly and metal back designs. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:2074–2080 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Van der List JP, Kleeblad LJ, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD (2017) Mid-term outcomes of metal-backed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty show superiority to all-polyethylene unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty. HSS J 13(3):232–240 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mullaji AB, Shah S, Shetty GM (2016) Mobile-bearing medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty restores limb alignment comparable to that of the unaffected contralateral limb. Acta Orthop 88(1):70–74 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hamilton TW, Pandit HG, Jenkins C et al. (2017) Evidence-based indications for mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in a consecutive cohort of thousand knees. J Arthroplast 32(6):1779–1785 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Heyse TJ, Slane J, Peersman G et al. (2017) Balancing mobile-bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasty in vitro. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25(12):3733–3740 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ettinger M, Zoch JM, Becher C, Hurschler C et al. (2015) In vitro kinematics of fixed versus mobile bearing in unicondylar knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 135(6):871–877 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Peersman G, Stuyts B, Vandenlangenbergh T et al. (2015) Fixed- versus mobile-bearing UKA: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23(11):3296–3305 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gulati A, Pandit H, Jenkins C et al. (2009) The effect of leg alignment on the outcome of unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Jt Surg, Br 91(4):469–474 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ali AM, Newman SD, Hooper PA et al. (2017) The effect of implant position on bone strain following lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a biomechanical model using digital image correlation. Bone Jt Res 6(8):522–529 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Herry Y, Batailler C, Lording T et al. (2017) Improved joint-line restitution in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using a robotic-assisted surgical technique. Int Orthop 41(11):2265–2271 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Cossey AJ, Spriggins AJ (2005) The use of computer-assisted surgical navigation to prevent malalignment in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 20(1):29–34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Keene G, Simpson D, Kalairajah Y (2006) Limb alignment in computer-assisted minimally-invasive unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Jt Surg, Br 88(1):44–48 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Lonner JH (2009) Indications for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and rationale for robotic arm-assisted technology. Am J Orthop 38(2 Suppl):3–6 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Liddle AD, Judge A, Pandit H et al. (2014) 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 384:1437–1445 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    The New Zealand Joint Registry. Fourteen Year Report. January 1999 to December 2012. Available at: Accessed on April
  56. 56.
    Niinimaki T, Eskelinen A, Makela K et al. (2014) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty survivorship is lower than TKA survivorship: a 27-year Finnish registry study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:1496 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Stukenborg-Colsman C, Wirth CJ, Lazovic D, Wefer A (2001) High tibial osteotomy versus unicompartmental joint replacement in unicompartmental knee joint osteoarthritis: 7–10-year follow-up prospective randomised study. Knee 8(3):187–194 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Fiocchi A, Condello V, Madonna V et al. (2017) Medial vs lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: clinical results. Acta Biomed 88(2-S):38–44 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lombardi AV Jr., Berend KR, Walter CA et al. (2009) Is recovery faster for mobile-bearing unicompartmental than total knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:1450 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Società Italiana Ortopedici Traumatologi Ospedalieri d’Italia 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Casa di cura Nuova San FrancescoFoggiaItalia
  2. 2.San RaffaeleMilanoItalia

Personalised recommendations