Advertisement

Inferior outcome of revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty compared with primary total knee arthroplasty: systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Jin Kyu Lee
  • Hyun Jung Kim
  • Jae Ok Park
  • Jae-Hyuk Yang
Knee

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare the revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with primary TKA through a review of previously published studies. The hypothesis was that the revised UKA group would need additional operative procedures, including the use of stems and augments, resulting in poorer clinical outcomes than those of the primary TKA group.

Methods

A literature search of online register databases was performed to identify clinical trials that compared revised UKA to TKA with primary TKA. An electronic literature search was performed using the Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. No language or date restrictions were applied.

Results

A total of 2034 articles were identified from a keyword search, of which 11 studies were determined as eligible. They were all retrospective comparative studies. The revised UKA to TKA group had longer operation times resulting from additional procedures such as bone grafting and use of stems and augments, higher reoperation rates, and worse postoperative clinical outcomes based on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and Oxford Knee Score than the primary TKA group, with the differences being statistically significant.

Conclusion

UKA should not be considered an alternative procedure to TKA.

Level of evidence

Therapeutic Level III.

Keywords

Revision Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty Total knee arthroplasty Systematic review Meta-analysis 

Notes

Funding

No source of funding to declare.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.

Ethical approval

This study dealt with published data only, no ethical approval was needed.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Supplementary material

167_2018_4909_MOESM1_ESM.doc (70 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 70 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Cankaya D, Della Valle CJ (2016) Blood loss and transfusion rates in the revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty are similar to those of primary total knee arthroplasty but are lower compared with the revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 31:339–341CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Craik JD, El Shafie SA, Singh VK, Twyman RS (2015) Revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 30:592–594CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cross MB, Yi PY, Moric M, Sporer SM, Berger RA, Della Valle CJ (2014) Revising an HTO or UKA to TKA: is it more like a primary TKA or a revision TKA? J Arthroplasty 29:229–231CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jarvenpaa J, Kettunen J, Miettinen H, Kroger H (2010) The clinical outcome of revision knee replacement after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty: 8–17 years follow-up study of 49 patients. Int Orthop 34:649–653CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jonas SC, Shah R, Mitra A, Deo SD (2014) 5-Year cost/benefit analysis of revision of failed unicompartmental knee replacements (UKRs); not “just” a primary total knee replacement (TKR). Knee 21:840–842CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim KT, Lee S, Lee JI, Kim JW (2016) Analysis and Treatment of Complications after Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res 28:46–54CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kim KT, Lee S, Lee JS, Kang MS, Koo KH (2018) Long-term clinical results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients younger than 60 years of age: minimum 10-year Follow-up. Knee Surg Relat Res 30:28–33CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim YJ, Kim BH, Yoo SH, Kang SW, Kwack CH, Song MH (2017) Mid-term results of Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in young asian patients less than 60 years of age: a minimum 5-year follow-up. Knee Surg Relat Res 29:122–128CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kleeblad LJ, van der List JP, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD (2017) Larger range of motion and increased return to activity, but higher revision rates following unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in patients under 65: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4817-y PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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 27:141–148CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leta TH, Lygre SH, Skredderstuen A, Hallan G, Gjertsen JE, Rokne B, Furnes O (2016) Outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty after aseptic revision to total knee arthroplasty: a comparative study of 768 TKAs and 578 UKAs revised to TKAs from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (1994 to 2011). J Bone Joint Surg Am 98:431–440CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lum ZC, Crawford DA, Lombardi AV Jr, Hurst JM, Morris MJ, Adams JB, Berend KR (2018) Early comparative outcomes of unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty in severely obese patients. Knee.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2017.10.006 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lunebourg A, Parratte S, Ollivier M, Abdel MP, Argenson JN (2015) Are revisions of unicompartmental knee arthroplasties more like a primary or revision TKA? J Arthroplasty 30:1985–1989CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    O’Donnell TM, Abouazza O, Neil MJ (2013) Revision of minimal resection resurfacing unicondylar knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: results compared with primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 28:33–39CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pearse AJ, Hooper GJ, Rothwell A, Frampton C (2010) Survival and functional outcome after revision of a unicompartmental to a total knee replacement: the New Zealand National Joint Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92:508–512CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pearse AJ, Hooper GJ, Rothwell AG, Frampton C (2012) Osteotomy and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty converted to total knee arthroplasty: data from the New Zealand Joint Registry. J Arthroplasty 27:1827–1831CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pietschmann MF, Ficklscherer A, Wohlleb L, Schmidutz F, Jansson V, Muller PE (2014) UKA can be safely revised to primary knee arthroplasty by using an autologous bone plate from the proximal lateral tibia. J Arthroplasty 29:1991–1995CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    PRISMA (2009) The PRISMA statement. http://www.prismastatement.org/statement.htm
  20. 20.
    Rancourt MF, Kemp KA, Plamondon SM, Kim PR, Dervin GF (2012) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasties revised to total knee arthroplasties compared with primary total knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 27:106–110CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Robertsson O, A WD (2015) The risk of revision after TKA is affected by previous HTO or UKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:90–93CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ryu SM, Park JW, Na HD, Shon OJ (2018) High tibial osteotomy versus unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for medial compartment arthrosis with kissing lesions in relatively young patients. Knee Surg Relat Res 30:17–22CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Saldanha KAN, Keys GW, Svard UCG, White SH, Rao C (2007) Revision of Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty—results of a multicentre study. Knee 14:275–279CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Saragaglia D, Estour G, Nemer C, Colle PE (2009) Revision of 33 unicompartmental knee prostheses using total knee arthroplasty: strategy and results. Int Orthop 33:969–974CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    WellsGA SB, O’Connell D The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp
  26. 26.
    Xia Z, Liow MHL, Goh GS, Chong HC, Lo NN, Yeo SJ (2017) Body mass index changes after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty do not adversely influence patient outcomes. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4703-7 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jin Kyu Lee
    • 1
  • Hyun Jung Kim
    • 2
  • Jae Ok Park
    • 3
  • Jae-Hyuk Yang
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryHanyang University HospitalSeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Preventive MedicineCollege of Medicine, Korea UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  3. 3.Medical LibraryVeterans Health Service Medical CenterSeoulSouth Korea
  4. 4.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryHanyang University Guri HospitalGuriSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations