Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Two Year Follow-up of the Preservation Unicompartmental Knee Implant

  • Original Article
  • Published:
HSS Journal ®

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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. Clarke H D, Scuderi G R. (2001). Revision total knee arthroplasty: Planning, management, controversies, and surgical approaches. Instr Course Lect, 50, 359–365

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Font-Rodriguez D E, Scuderi G R, Insall J N. (1997). Survivorship of cemented total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 345(345), 79–86

    Google Scholar 

  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), 89–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Insall J, Walker P. (1976). Unicondylar knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 120(120), 83–85

    Google Scholar 

  6. Laskin R S. (1978). Unicompartmental tibiofemoral resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 60(2), 182–185

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Laskin R S. (2001). Unicompartmental knee replacement: Some unanswered questions. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 392(392), 267–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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), 50–60

    Google Scholar 

  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), 983–989

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Ewald F. (1989). The knee society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 248(248), 9–12

    Google Scholar 

  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), 130–142

    Google Scholar 

  12. Berry D J. (2004). Recognizing and identifying osteolysis around total knee arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect, 53, 261–264

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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), 157–164

    Google Scholar 

  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), 332–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Insall J, Aglietti P. (1980). A five to seven-year follow-up of unicondylar arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 62(8), 1329–1337

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Borus T, Thornhill T. (2008). Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 16(1), 9–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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), 999–1006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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), 286–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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), 801–803

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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), 809–812

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Rudol G, Jackson M P, James S E. (2007). Medial tibial plateau fracture complicating unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty, 22(1), 148–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Midwest Orthopaedic Institute SC, Sycamore, IL, USA

    Rajeev K. Jain MD

  2. Shiley Center for Orthopaedic Research & Education at Scripps Clinic, 11025 North Torrey Pines Road, Suite 200, La Jolla, CA, 92037, USA

    Lorraine T. Neville PA & Clifford W. Colwell Jr. MD

  3. Scripps Clinic, La Jolla, CA, USA

    Kace A. Ezzet MD

  4. University of Maryland Affiliated Hospitals, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Robert S. Sterling MD

  5. Fairview General & Lakewood Hospital, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Raymond L. Horwood MD

Authors
  1. Rajeev K. Jain MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lorraine T. Neville PA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kace A. Ezzet MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert S. Sterling MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Raymond L. Horwood MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Clifford W. Colwell Jr. MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Clifford W. Colwell Jr. MD.

Additional information

Each author certifies that he or she has no commercial associations (e.g., consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.

Each author certifies that his or her institution has approved the human protocol for this investigation and that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research, and that informed consent for participation in the study was obtained.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jain, R.K., Neville, L.T., Ezzet, K.A. et al. Two Year Follow-up of the Preservation Unicompartmental Knee Implant. HSS Jrnl 7, 125–129 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-011-9205-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-011-9205-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation