Failure Mechanisms After Unicompartmental and Tricompartmental Primary Knee Replacement with Cement
- 1 March 2007
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) in The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery
- Vol. 89 (3), 519-525
- https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.f.00210
Abstract
Background: Concern exists regarding the durability of unicompartmental knee replacements. The purpose of the present study was to compare the early failure rates and failure mechanisms of primary cemented unicompartmental knee replacements with those of primary cemented tricompartmental total knee replacements. Methods: The rates of failure of primary cemented unicompartmental knee replacements (n = 2288) and tricompartmental total knee replacements (n = 3032) as reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register from January 1994 through December 2004 were compared with use of Kaplan-Meier estimated survival rates and Cox multiple regression. Results: The ten-year survival probability was 80.1% (95% confidence interval, 76.0% to 84.2%) for unicompartmental knee replacements, compared with 92.0% (95% confidence interval, 90.4 to 93.6%) for total knee replacements, with a relative risk of revision of 2.0 (95% confidence interval, 1.6 to 2.5) (p < 0.001). This increased risk of revision following unicompartmental knee replacement was seen in all age-categories. Unicompartmental knee replacement was associated with an increased risk of revision due to pain (relative risk, 11.3 [95% confidence interval, 4.8 to 26.8]; p < 0.001), aseptic loosening of the tibial component (relative risk, 1.9 [95% confidence interval, 1.2 to 3.0]; p = 0.01) and of the femoral component (relative risk, 4.8 [95% confidence interval, 2.3 to 10.3]; p < 0.001), and periprosthetic fracture (relative risk, 3.2 [95% confidence interval, 1.2 to 8.9]; p = 0.02) as compared with total knee replacement. Unicompartmental knee replacement was associated with a lower risk of infection compared with total knee replacement (relative risk, 0.28 [95% confidence interval, 0.10 to 0.74]; p = 0.01). Conclusions: The survival of cemented unicompartmental knee replacements is inferior to that of cemented tricompartmental total knee replacements in all age-categories. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.Keywords
This publication has 25 references indexed in Scilit:
- Registration completeness in the Norwegian Arthroplasty RegisterActa Orthopaedica, 2006
- Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients younger and older than 60 years of ageThe Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume, 2005
- Early failures of total hip replacement: Effect of surgeon volumeArthritis & Rheumatism, 2004
- A comparative study of the medial St Georg Sled and Kinematic total knee arthroplastiesThe Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 2002
- Early failures among 7,174 primary total knee replacements: A follow-up study from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 1994-2000Acta Orthopaedica, 2002
- The routine of surgical management reduces failure after unicompartmental knee arthroplastyThe Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 2001
- The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register: 11 years and 73,000 arthroplastiesActa Orthopaedica, 2000
- Unicompartmental or total knee replacement?The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 1998
- The Swedish knee arthroplasty register: A nation-wide study of 30,003 knees 1976-1992Acta Orthopaedica, 1994
- The infected knee arthroplasty: A 6-year follow-up of 357 casesActa Orthopaedica, 1991