History of the Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

  • Faisal Akram
  • Brett Levine


Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty dates back to the 1940s and 1950s and has waxed and waned in its utilization over time. Early implants were of the hemiarthroplasty/spacer design, while modern implants are closer in relation to a total-knee arthroplasty. The evolution of unicompartmental knee replacement components and the improvements in instrumentation have made implantation more reliable and consistent over time. Most recently, unicompartmental knee replacements are routinely being performed as outpatient procedures in surgery centers. The future may hold further validation of robotic surgery, cementless implants, and improved outpatient outcomes for unicompartmental knee replacements. This chapter offers some historical insight into the path that has been taken to get to the modern-day unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.


History Hemiarthroplasty McKeever Oxford Outcomes 


  1. 1.
    Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Hip, Knee & Shoulder Annual Report 2017. Accessed 1 August 2018.
  2. 2.
    Baker P, Jameson S, Critchley R, Reed M, Gregg P, Deehan D. Center and surgeon volume influence the revision rate following unicondylar knee replacement: an analysis of 23,400 medial cemented unicondylar knee replacements. JBJS. 2013;95(8):702–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr. Obesity, young age, patellofemoral disease, and anterior knee pain: identifying the unicondylar arthroplasty patient in the United States. Orthopedics. 2007;30(5):19.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berger RA, Meneghini RM, Jacobs JJ, Sheinkop MB, Della Valle CJ, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO. Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum of ten years of follow-up. JBJS. 2005;87(5):999–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chawla H, Van Der List JP, Christ AB, Sobrero MR, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD. Annual revision rates of partial versus total knee arthroplasty: a comparative meta-analysis. Knee. 2017;24(2):179–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Citak M, Suero EM, Citak M, Dunbar NJ, Branch SH, Conditt MA, et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is robotic technology more accurate than conventional technique? Knee. 2013;20(4):268–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Drager J, Hart A, Khalil JA, Zukor DJ, Bergeron SG, Antoniou J. Shorter hospital stay and lower 30-day readmission after unicondylar knee arthroplasty compared to total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2016;31(2):356–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Edmondson M, Atrey A, East D, Ellens N, Miles K, Goddard R, et al. Survival analysis and functional outcome of the Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement up to 11 years follow up at a District General Hospital. J Orthop. 2015;12:S105–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Faour-Martín O, Valverde-García JA, Martín-Ferrero MÁ, Vega-Castrillo A, de la Red Gallego MA, de Puga CCS, Amigo-Liñares L. Oxford phase 3 unicondylar knee arthroplasty through a minimally invasive approach: long-term results. Int Orthop. 2013;37(5):833–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ghomrawi HM, Eggman AA, Pearle AD. Effect of age on cost-effectiveness of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compared with total knee arthroplasty in the US. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(5):396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goodfellow JW, Tibrewal SB, Sherman KP, O’Connor JJ. Unicompartmental Oxford meniscal knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 1987;2(1):1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim KT, Lee S, Kim JH, Hong SW, Jung WS, Shin WS. The survivorship and clinical results of minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at 10-year follow-up. Clin Orthop Surg. 2015;7(2):199–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kozinn SC, Scott R. Unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Sur Am. 1989;71(1):145–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lau RL, Perruccio AV, Gandhi R, Mahomed NN. The role of surgeon volume on patient outcome in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13(1):250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Laurencin CT, Zelicof SB, Scott RD, Ewald FC. Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in the same patient. A comparative study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991;273:151–6.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liddle AD, Judge A, Pandit H, Murray DW. 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(9952):1437–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    MacIntosh DL, Hunter GA. The use of the hemiarthroplasty prosthesis for advanced osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg. 1972;54(2):244–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mackinnon J, Young S, Baily RA. The St Georg sledge for unicompartmental replacement of the knee. A prospective study of 115 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1988;70(2):217–23. PMID: 3346291.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mckeever DC. The choice of prosthetic materials and evaluation of results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1955;6:17–21.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Murray DW, Goodfellow JW, O’connor JJ. The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a ten-year survival study. J Bone Joint Surg. 1998;80(6):983–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    National Joint Registry. 14th Annual Report National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. Accessed 1 August 2018.
  22. 22.
    Palmer SH, Morrison PJM, Ross AC. Early catastrophic tibial component wear after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;350:143–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pandit H, Jenkins C, Gill HS, Barker K, Dodd CAF, Murray DW. Minimally invasive Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee replacement: results of 1000 cases. J Bone Joint Surg. 2011;93(2):198–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pearle AD, O’Loughlin PF, Kendoff DO. Robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2010;25(2):230–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ritter MA, et al. Intra-operative findings in varus osteoarthritis of the knee: an analysis of pre-operative alignment in potential candidates for unicompartmental arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg. 2004;86(1):43–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Robertsson O, Knutson K, Lewold S, Lidgren L. The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register 1975-1997: an update with special emphasis on 41,223 knees operated on in 1988-1997. Acta Orthop Scand. 2001;72(5):503–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schwab PE, Lavand’homme P, Yombi JC, Thienpont E. Lower blood loss after unicompartmental than total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(12):3494–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shankar S, Tetreault MW, Jegier BJ, Andersson GB, Della Valle CJ. A cost comparison of unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty. Knee. 2016;23(6):1016–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Siman H, Kamath AF, Carrillo N, Harmsen WS, Pagnano MW, Sierra RJ. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty vs total knee arthroplasty for medial compartment arthritis in patients older than 75 years: comparable reoperation, revision, and complication rates. J Arthroplast. 2017;32(6):1792–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Soohoo NF, Sharifi H, Kominski G, Lieberman JR. Cost-effectiveness analysis of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty as an alternative to total knee arthroplasty for unicompartmental osteoarthritis. JBJS. 2006;88(9):1975–82.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Squire MW, Callaghan JJ, Goetz DD, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC. Unicompartmental knee replacement. A minimum 15 year followup study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;367:61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register. Swedish knee arthroplasty register 2017 Annual Report. http:// Eng_1.0.pdf. Accessed 1 August 2018.
  33. 33.
    Yoshida K, Tada M, Yoshida H, Takei S, Fukuoka S, Nakamura H. Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in Japan—clinical results in greater than one thousand cases over ten years. J Arthroplast. 2013;28(9):168–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Faisal Akram
    • 1
  • Brett Levine
    • 1
  1. 1.Adult Reconstruction Division, Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryRush University Medical CenterChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations