Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2008 Jul;466(7):1666-70.
doi: 10.1007/s11999-008-0279-3. Epub 2008 May 9.

Registry outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revisions

Affiliations

Registry outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revisions

Thomas E Dudley et al. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008 Jul.

Abstract

Perceptions of the difficulty and outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revision (rev-UKA) vary. We analyzed differences in the complexity, cost, and survival of rev-UKAs compared with revision TKAs (rev-TKA). One hundred eighty knee arthroplasty revisions (68 rev-UKAs/112 rev-TKAs), defined as a minimum of tibial or femoral component revision, were identified from a community joint registry of 7587 knee implants performed between 1991 and 2005. Four of 68 rev-UKAs (5.9%) were revised a second time, whereas seven of 112 rev-TKAs (6.3%) were rerevised. Rev-TKA was predictably more complex than rev-UKA based on the proxies of operative time, use of modular augmentation and stems, and polyethylene liner thickness. Thirty-nine of 68 rev-UKAs (57%) had no form of augmentation and were revised as primary TKAs. There were more rev-TKAs than rev-UKAs with an implant cost greater than $5200 (42% versus 12%) and hospital charges greater than $33,000 (48% versus 25%). We found no difference in survival between the groups. Although rev-UKAs had less surgical complexity and bone loss at the time of revision compared with rev-TKAs, we were unable to show improved survival of rev-UKAs compared with rev-TKAs. Rev-UKAs were associated with lower implant costs and hospital charges compared with rev-TKAs.

Level of evidence: Level II, prognostic study.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The graph shows the secondary cumulative revision rate (CRR) by primary revision type. CI = confidence interval.

References

    1. {'text': '', 'ref_index': 1, 'ids': [{'type': 'PubMed', 'value': '12473714', 'is_inner': True, 'url': 'https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12473714/'}]}
    2. Argenson JN, Chevrol-Benkeddache Y, Aubaniac JM. Modern unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cement: a three to ten-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:2235–2239. - PubMed
    1. {'text': '', 'ref_index': 1, 'ids': [{'type': 'PubMed', 'value': '6851331', 'is_inner': True, 'url': 'https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6851331/'}]}
    2. Bae DK, Guhl JF, Keane SP. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for single compartment disease: clinical experience with an average four-year follow-up study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983;176:233–238. - PubMed
    1. {'text': '', 'ref_index': 1, 'ids': [{'type': 'PubMed', 'value': '3440791', 'is_inner': True, 'url': 'https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3440791/'}]}
    2. Barrett WP, Scott RD. Revision of failed unicondylar unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;69:1328–1335. - PubMed
    1. {'text': '', 'ref_index': 1, 'ids': [{'type': 'DOI', 'value': '10.1054/arth.2000.9841', 'is_inner': False, 'url': 'https://doi.org/10.1054/arth.2000.9841'}, {'type': 'PubMed', 'value': '11112191', 'is_inner': True, 'url': 'https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11112191/'}]}
    2. Bohm I, Landsiedl F. Revision surgery after failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study of 35 cases. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15:982–989. - PubMed
    1. {'text': '', 'ref_index': 1, 'ids': [{'type': 'DOI', 'value': '10.1016/S0883-5403(05)80120-2', 'is_inner': False, 'url': 'https://doi.org/10.1016/s0883-5403(05)80120-2'}, {'type': 'PubMed', 'value': '7798094', 'is_inner': True, 'url': 'https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7798094/'}]}
    2. Callahan CM, Drake BG, Heck DA, Dittus RS. Patient outcomes following unicompartmental or bicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty. 1995;10:141–150. - PubMed