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
Comparative Study
. 2010 Feb;81(1):95-8.
doi: 10.3109/17453671003628731.

Outcome of revision of unicompartmental knee replacement

Jacqueline R Hang  1 , Tyman E Stanford, Stephen E Graves, David C Davidson, Richard N de Steiger, Lisa N Miller
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Outcome of revision of unicompartmental knee replacement

Jacqueline R Hang et al. Acta Orthop. 2010 Feb.

Abstract

Background and purpose: Despite concerns regarding a higher risk of revision, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) continues to be used as an alternative to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). There are, however, limited data on the subsequent outcome when a UKA is revised. We examined the survivorship for primary UKA procedures that have been revised.

Methods: We used data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) to analyze the survivorship of 1,948 revisions of primary UKA reported to the Registry between September 1999 and December 2008. This was compared to the results of revisions of primary TKA reported during the same period where both the femoral and tibial components were revised. The Kaplan-Meier method for modeling survivorship was used.

Results: When a primary UKA was revised to another UKA (both major and minor revisions), it had a cumulative per cent revision (CPR) of 28 and 30 at 3 years, respectively. The CPR at 3 years when a UKA was converted to a TKA was 10. This is similar to the 3-year CPR (12) found earlier for primary TKA where both the femoral and tibial components were revised.

Interpretation: When a UKA requires revision, the best outcome is achieved when it is converted to a TKA. This procedure does, however, have a major risk of re-revision, which is similar to the risk of re-revision of a primary TKA that has had both the femoral and tibial components revised.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Cumulative percent revision of “revision of primary” UKA (excluding infection).
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Cumulative percent revision of “revision of primary” knee replacement (excluding infection).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. AOANJRR Annual report Adelaide; Australia: 2009. Hip and knee arthroplasty.
    1. Barrett WP, Scott RD. Revision of failed unicondylar unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 1987;69((9)):1328–35. - PubMed
    1. Berger RA, Nedeff DD, Barden RM, Sheinkop MM, Jacobs JJ, Rosenberg AG, et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clinical experience at 6- to 10-year followup. Clin Orthop. 1999;((367)):50–60. - PubMed
    1. Cameron HU, Jung YB. A comparison of unicompartmental knee replacement with total knee replacement. Orthop Rev. 1988;17:983–8. - PubMed
    1. Chakrabarty G, Newman JH, Ackroyd CE. Revision of unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee. Clinical and technical considerations. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13((2)):191–6. - PubMed

Publication types