Is unicompartmental-to-unicompartmental revision knee arthroplasty a reliable option? Case-control study

AbstractBackgroundIn selected patients with failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), revision UKA is a reliable option and may even provide lower morbidity rates and better functional outcomes compared to revision total knee arthroplasty.Material and methodsIn a multicentre retrospective study of 425 knees requiring revision surgery after UKA, 36 knees were managed with revision UKA.ResultsOf the 36 knees, 3 (8.33%) required iterative revision surgery, for aseptic loosening. After a mean follow-up of 8.3 years, the mean IKS knee and function scores were high (93.81/100 and 90.77/100, respectively).DiscussionIn carefully selected patients, UKA-to-UKA revision performed according to a rigorous operative technique deserves a role in the surgical strategy for failed UKA.Level of evidenceIII, multicentre retrospective case-control study