Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

BACKGROUND: Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) tends to provide better function but has a higher revision rate than total knee replacement (TKR). The aim was to determine if this occurred in all age groups. METHODS: Two large, non-registry, prospective cohorts with median 10-year follow-up (2252 TKR, 1000 medial UKR) were identified. All UKR met recommended indications. TKR with an inappropriate disease pattern for medial UKR were excluded. Knees were propensity score-matched within age-strata (<60 years at operation, 60 to <75, 75+) and compared using Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Kaplan-Meier revision rates and a composite failure, defined as any of revision, reoperation or no improvement in OKS. RESULTS: One thousand five hundred and eighty-two TKR and UKR were matched. Results are reported TKR vs UKR for ages <60, 60 to <75 and 75+. Median 10-year OKS were 33 vs 45 (p < 0.001), 36 vs 42 (p < 0.001) and 36 vs 38 (p = 0.25). Ten-year revision rates were 11% vs 7%, 5% vs 5%, and 5% vs 10%, (none significant). The composite failures occurred 8%, 5% and 5% more frequently with TKR than UKR (none significant). CONCLUSIONS: In this matched study UKR provided better functional outcomes in all age groups, particularly the young, and provided substantially more excellent outcomes. Although in older groups TKR tended to have a lower revision rate, in the young UKR had a lower revision rate. This was surprising and was perhaps because in this study UKR was, as recommended, only used for bone-on-bone arthritis, whereas in young patients it is widely used for early arthritis, which is associated with a high failure rate. This study supports the use of UKR with recommended indications, in all age groups.

Original publication

DOI

10.1016/j.knee.2020.06.004

Type

Journal article

Journal

Knee

Publication Date

27/07/2020

Volume

27

Pages

1332 - 1342

Keywords

Age, Comparison, Functional outcome, Implant revision, Total knee replacement, Unicompartmental knee replacement