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
Review
. 2021 Apr 18;12(4):197-206.
doi: 10.5312/wjo.v12.i4.197.

Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: A review

Affiliations
Review

Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: A review

Scott D Buzin et al. World J Orthop. .

Abstract

Isolated lateral compartment osteoarthritis of the knee is a rare condition affecting approximately 1% of the population, which is ten times less common than osteoarthritis affecting only the medial compartment. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has many potential advantages over total knee arthroplasty. The benefits of UKA include a smaller incision, preservation of more native tissue (including cruciate ligaments and bone), decreased blood loss, and better overall proprioception. When UKA was first introduced in the 1970s, the outcomes of medial UKA (MUKA) were poor, but the few cases of lateral UKA (LUKA) showed promise. Since that time, there has been a relative paucity of literature focused specifically on LUKA given it is a rare procedure. Refinements in patient selection criteria, implant design, and surgical technique have been made leading to increased popularity. A review of the recent literature reveals that LUKA is associated with excellent long-term clinical outcomes and implant survivorship when performed in properly selected patients. Implant design options include fixed vs mobile bearing as well as metal backed vs all polyethylene tibial component, with improved outcomes noted with fixed bearing designs. Three reasons cited for revision (i.e., fracture of the femoral component, fracture of the tibial component, and valgus malalignment) had been reported in past literature but not recently. Presently, while rare, the most common cause of failure and need for revision are osteoarthritis progression and aseptic loosening. Despite the need for an occasional revision procedure, the survivorship of LUKA is comparable to MUKA, although it should be noted that outcomes of MUKA have been notably varied. Continued pursuit of improved techniques and implant designs will continue to show LUKA to be an excellent procedure for appropriately indicated patients.

Keywords: Arthroplasty; Knee; Lateral; Outcomes; Review; Unicompartmental.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict-of-interest statement: None of the authors have anything to disclose as it pertains to the contents of this manuscript.

References

    1. Ledingham J, Regan M, Jones A, Doherty M. Radiographic patterns and associations of knee osteoarthritis. Rheumatol . 1993;32:140. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Deshmukh RV, Scott RD. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: long-term results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. :2001: 272–278. - PubMed
    1. Insall J, Aglietti P. A five to seven-year follow-up of unicondylar arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1980;62:1329–1337. - PubMed
    1. Insall J, Walker P. Unicondylar knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. :1976: 83–85. - PubMed
    1. Laskin RS. Unicompartmental tibiofemoral resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978;60:182–185. - PubMed