• K A N Saldanha, G W Keys, U C G Svard, S H White, and C Rao.
• East Cheshire NHS Trust, Macclesfield, United Kingdom.
• Knee. 2007 Aug 1;14(4):275-9.

AbstractThe advantages of Unicompartmental Knee Replacement (UKR) over Total Knee Replacement (TKR) includes the preservation of soft tissue as well as bone stock, and better function with improved range of motion and more natural gait. It is therefore believed that the revision of failed UKR to TKR is technically easier than revision of failed TKR. In our study we tested this hypothesis by assessing the reconstruction requirements and early clinical and radiological outcome following the revision of UKR to TKR. During a 15-year period 1060 primary Oxford medial UKR procedures were performed at three centres, 36 of which underwent revision to TKR due to aseptic failure. The mean operating time for revision surgery was 113 min. Among the revision prostheses used, 28 were standard TKRs, six were constrained, and two were semi-constrained. Thirty had no intramedullary stems whereas six had intramedullary stems. In 30 cases reconstruction for bone loss was not required whereas metal augmentation was used in two knees, contained peg defects in the femur were filled with cement in two knees and contained keel defects in the tibia were grafted using the bone from revision cuts in two knees. After a mean follow-up of 2 years, the mean 'total knee score' was 86.3 and the mean functional score was 78.5. These findings suggest that the complexity of operation and complications encountered during Oxford medial UKR revision and the clinical outcome compare favorably with those of TKR revision.

17 keywords...

hide…