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: There is controversy about optimal limb alignment following knee replacement. An aim of using Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) implants is to accurately restore normal ligament tension in the knee, thereby restoring normal kinematics. This return to normal tension typically results in a return to prearthritic alignment, which is frequently varus. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between postoperative limb alignment and postoperative patient-reported outcome and implant revision rate. METHODS: We used a consecutive cohort of 891 knees with cemented Oxford medial UKR implants with a mean 10-year follow-up and recorded alignment. We grouped knees according to postoperative mechanical alignment as marked varus (estimated at 10°), mild varus (estimated at 5°), neutral, and valgus. The mean Oxford Knee Score (OKS) was calculated at 5 and 10 years postoperatively. Revision risk was assessed by survival analysis and component-time incidence rates. RESULTS: Postoperatively, 67 (8%) of the 891 knees were in marked varus; 308 (35%), in mild varus; 508 (57%), in neutral; and 8 (1%), in valgus. The valgus group (8 knees) was too small for further analysis. The mean OKS (and standard deviation [SD]) at 10 years postoperatively was 41.7 ± 7 for marked varus, 40.5 ± 8 for mild varus, and 39.4 ± 9 for neutral alignment (p = 0.28). At 10 years, 92%, 85%, and 76% achieved a good or excellent OKS outcome, respectively (p = 0.02). Twelve-year survival rates were 93.3% for marked varus, 93.2% for mild varus, and 93.6% for neutral alignment, respectively (p = 0.53). Revision incidence rates per 100 component-years were 0.49 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2 to 1.5), 0.36 (95% CI, 0.2 to 0.7), and 0.54 (95% CI, 0.4 to 0.8), respectively, and were not significantly different (p = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: Marked postoperative varus mechanical alignment of an estimated 10° was present in 8%, and mild varus of about 5° was present in 35%. Increasing varus alignment was associated with an increasing percentage of good or excellent OKS outcomes, but otherwise there were no significant differences between alignment groups in patient-reported outcome or revision rate. These data support the standard operative technique for the Oxford UKR, which aims to restore ligament tension and therefore prearthritic alignment rather than neutral mechanical alignment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Original publication




Journal article


J bone joint surg am

Publication Date





270 - 275


Aged, Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee, Bone Malalignment, Female, Humans, Knee Prosthesis, Male, Osteoarthritis, Knee, Osteonecrosis, Patient Reported Outcome Measures, Prospective Studies, Reoperation, Treatment Outcome