Failure of unicompartmental knee replacement

Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is the principal alternative to total knee replacement (TKR) in the treatment of end-stage knee osteoarthritis. It involves less tissue resection, resulting in lower rates of morbidity and faster recoveries compared to TKR. However, UKR has a significantly higher revision rate compared to TKR. As a result, whilst over a third of patients are eligible for UKR, only around 8% receive it. A comprehensive comparison of matched patients undergoing TKR and UKR was undertaken using a large dataset from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR). Failure rates (revision, reoperation, complications and mortality), length of stay and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) were studied. Whilst patients undergoing TKR had lower reoperation and revision rates, they had higher rates of morbidity and mortality, longer hospital stays, and inferior PROMs compared to UKR. The main reason for revision in UKR was loosening. In view of the high revision rate in UKR, NJR data was studied to identify modifiable risk factors for failure in UKR. Important patient factors were identified including age, gender and pre-operative function. Surgeons with a higher UKR caseload had significantly lower revision rates and superior patient-reported outcomes. Increasing usage (offering UKR to a greater proportion of knee replacement patients) appears to be a viable method of increasing caseload and therefore of improving results. Surgeons with optimal usage (around 50% of patients, using appropriate implants) achieved revision/reoperation rates similar to matched patients undergoing TKR. Two clinical studies were conducted to establish whether the use of cementless fixation would improve fixation and reduce the revision rate of UKR. Cementless UKR was demonstrated to be safe and reliable, with PROMs similar or superior to those demonstrated in cemented UKR. Patients with suboptimal cementless fixation were examined and pre-disposing technical factors were identified. Finally, using NJR data, the effect of the introduction of cementless UKR on overall outcomes was examined. The number of cementless cases was small, and no significant effect on implant survival was demonstrated. However, patients undergoing cementless UKR demonstrated superior PROMs. These studies demonstrate that UKR has numerous advantages over TKR in terms of morbidity, mortality and PROMs. If surgeons perform high volumes of UKR (achievable by increasing their UKR usage), these advantages can be attained without the large difference in revision rates previously demonstrated. Cementless UKR is safe and provides superior fixation and outcomes in the hands of high-volume surgeons. Further work is needed to quantify the revision rate of cementless UKR, and to assess its results in the hands of less experienced surgeons.This thesis is not currently available on ORA