• Jason Beng Teck Lim, Hee Nee Pang, Keng Jin Darren Tay, Shi-Lu Chia, Ngai Nung Lo, and Seng Jin Yeo.
• Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Republic of Singapore. Electronic address: jason.lim@mohh.com.sg.
• Knee. 2019 Aug 1; 26 (4): 847-852.

BackgroundWith unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) being increasingly performed for medial compartment osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee, revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for failed UKA is expected to increase. Our primary aim is to evaluate patients in our tertiary institution who underwent revision of failed UKA to TKA to compare their pre-operative clinical scores (patient-reported outcome measures, PROMs) to those of primary TKA.MethodsRetrospective review of our institutional arthroplasty registry between 2001 and 2014 was performed. We identified 70 patients who underwent revision of UKA to TKA. The revision UKA to TKA patients was matched with 140 patients who underwent primary TKA for OA in terms of preoperative demographics, gender, age at time of surgery, body mass index (BMI), primary surgeon, and PROMs. Intra-operative data and postoperative complications or re-revision surgeries performed were reviewed.ResultsIn the revision UKA to TKA group, more stems, augments or constrained implants were used compared to primary TKA. A greater proportion of patients with metal-backed UKA revision to TKA required stems, augments or constrained implants as compared to all-polyethylene UKA revision to TKA, but not a significant proportion (P = 0.250). At two years postoperatively, there were no significant differences observed between the groups in terms of patient satisfaction and PROMs.ConclusionsThis study showed similar outcomes following revision of failed UKA to TKA and primary TKA. There were significant improvements in PROMs for revision UKA to TKA, which is comparable to that of primary TKA.Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

21 keywords...

hide…