Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Background and purpose - Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) offers advantages over total replacement but has higher revision rates, particularly for aseptic loosening. The cementless Oxford UKR was introduced to address this. We undertook a registry-based matched comparison of cementless and cemented UKRs.Patients and methods - From 40,552 Oxford UKRs identified by the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Isle of Man (NJR) we propensity score matched, based on patient, surgical, and implant factors, 7,407 cemented and 7,407 cementless UKRs (total = 14,814).Results - The 10-year cumulative implant survival rates for cementless and cemented UKRs was 93% (95% CI 90-96) and 90% (CI 88-92) respectively, with this difference being significant (HR 0.76; p = 0.002). The risk of revision for aseptic loosening was less than half (p < 0.001) in the cementless (0.42%) compared with the cemented group (1.00%), and the risk of revision also decreased for unexplained pain (to 0.46% from 0.74%; p = 0.03) and lysis (to 0.04% from 0.15%; p = 0.03). However, the risk of revision for periprosthetic fracture increased significantly (p = 0.01) in the cementless (0.26%) compared with the cemented group (0.09%). 10-year patient survival rates were similar (HR 1.2; p = 0.1).Interpretation - The cementless UKR has improved 10-year implant survival compared with the cemented UKR, independent of patient, implant, and surgical factors. This improved survival in the cementless group was primarily the result of lower revision rate for aseptic loosening, unexplained pain, and lysis, suggesting the fixation of the cementless was superior. However, there was a small increased risk of revision for periprosthetic fracture with the cementless implant.

Original publication




Journal article


Acta orthop

Publication Date





76 - 81


Aged, Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee, Bone Cements, England, Female, Hemiarthroplasty, Humans, Logistic Models, Male, Middle Aged, Northern Ireland, Osteoarthritis, Knee, Periprosthetic Fractures, Propensity Score, Proportional Hazards Models, Prosthesis Design, Prosthesis Failure, Registries, Reoperation, Survival Rate, United Kingdom, Wales