Revision of failed unicompartmental knee replacement to total knee replacement

Chou, David; Swamy, Girish; Lewis, James R.; Badhe, Nitin P.

doi:10.1016/j.knee.2011.05.002

Cited by 72 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several recent studies have found that UKA revision is inferior to primary TKA and concluded that UKA should not be used as a conservative procedure to delay TKA [13,16]. As the functional scores in our study were not significantly different between groups, we cannot concur with this conclusion.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 81%

“…However, it is still not an ideal comparison because it fails to recognise that joint disease has been occurring in the knees that initially received the UKA for a much longer period than those receiving a primary TKA. A slightly inferior result in the UKA revision group, as other studies have found [13,[15][16][17][18][19], might be acceptable to surgeon and patient, as the original UKA has treated the symptoms of joint disease for many years.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Pearse et al [13] found a mean OKS of 30.02 (vs. 37.16 in the primary TKA group) and Chou et al [16] found a mean OKS of 29 (vs. 39 in the primary TKA group). Both of these studies found that the index procedure was significantly poorer than primary TKA, and although the differences in our study were narrower, we concede that a greater sample size may have shown statistical significance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, most are small case series and there is little consistency in outcome measures, comparators and follow-up periods. Many of the more recent series compare UKA revision with primary TKA, and these have found the functional result of UKA revision surgery to be inferior to that of primary TKA [13,[15][16][17][18][19]. Based on this result, Pearse et al and Chou et al conclude that UKA should not be used to delay TKA.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Functional Outcomes of Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty Following Failed Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

Ironside

Coffey²,

Eslick³

et al. 2015

JISRF

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) can be used to treat medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee. Some of these knees will eventually fail, and need to be revised. There is controversy about using UKA in younger patients as a definitive procedure or as a means to delay total knee arthroplasty (TKA) because the outcomes of subsequent revision surgery may be inferior to a primary TKA.Methods: We retrospectively reviewed a series of 46 revision TKA patients following failed UKA (UKA revisions) using functional outcomes questionnaires and compared the results with a cohort of age and gender matched primary TKA patients. Our hypothesis was that UKA revision surgery would be inferior to primary TKA surgery.Results: Data was collected on 33 knees after a mean follow-up period of five years. There was no significant difference in the Oxford Knee Score (33.7 vs 37.1, p = 0.09) or the Western Ontario and MacMasters Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) (24.8 vs. 19.1, p = 0.22). A subgroup analysis demonstrated that UKAs, which fail early, are more likely to produce an inferior outcome following revision surgery than those that survive more than five years.Discussion: We conclude that UKA can be used effectively in appropriately selected patients, as the functional outcome of their subsequent revision to TKA is not significantly inferior to a primary TKA.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 81%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Functional Outcomes of Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty Following Failed Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

Ironside

Coffey²,

Eslick³

et al. 2015

JISRF

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The New Zealand National Joint Registry [22] concluded that the poor results of unicompartmental knee replacements revisions ''contraindicate'' the use of unicompartmental knee replacements in younger patients. The cost and morbidity of unicompartmental knee replacement revision now drive such decisions [6,7,15,18].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%