» Articles » PMID: 23907606

The Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Fails at a High Rate in a High-volume Knee Practice

Overview
Publisher Wolters Kluwer
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2013 Aug 3
PMID 23907606
Citations 12
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The Oxford knee is a unicompartmental implant featuring a mobile-bearing polyethylene component with excellent long-term survivorship results reported by the implant developers and early adopters. By contrast, other studies have reported higher revision rates in large academic practices and in national registries. Registry data have shown increased failure with this implant especially by lower-volume surgeons and institutions.

Questions/purposes: In the setting of a high-volume knee arthroplasty practice, we sought to determine (1) the failure rate of the Oxford unicompartmental knee implant using a failure definition for aseptic loosening that combined clinical features, plain radiographs, and scintigraphy, and (2) whether increased experience with this implant would decrease failure rate, if there is a learning curve effect.

Methods: Eighty-three Oxford knee prostheses were implanted between September 2005 and July 2008 by the principal investigator. Radiographic and clinical data were available for review for all cases. A failed knee was defined as having recurrent pain after an earlier period of recovery from surgery, progressive radiolucent lines compared with initial postoperative radiographs, and a bone scan showing an isolated area of uptake limited to the area of the replaced compartment.

Results: Eleven knees in this series failed (13%); Kaplan-Meier survivorship was 86.5% (95% CI, 78.0%-95.0%) at 5 years. Failure occurrences were distributed evenly over the course of the study period. No learning curve effect was identified.

Conclusions: Based on these findings, including a high failure rate of the Oxford knee implant and the absence of any discernible learning curve effect, the principal investigator no longer uses this implant.

Citing Articles

The Anterior Impingement After Mobile-Bearing Unicomparimental Knee Arthroplasty-A Neglected Problem. A Clinical Report of 14 Cases.

Rottinger T, Lisitano L, Wiedl A, Mayr E, Rottinger H Arthroplast Today. 2022; 17:94-100.

PMID: 36042942 PMC: 9420323. DOI: 10.1016/j.artd.2022.06.019.


Radiological outcomes following manual and robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Kazarian G, Barrack R, Barrack T, Lawrie C, Nunley R Bone Jt Open. 2021; 2(3):191-197.

PMID: 33739128 PMC: 8009894. DOI: 10.1302/2633-1462.23.BJO-2020-0205.R1.


A novel radiographic technique to assess 180° rotational spin of the Oxford unicompartmental knee mobile bearing.

Jamshed S, Shah R, Arooj A, Turner A, Plakogiannis C J Orthop. 2020; 21:438-443.

PMID: 32968338 PMC: 7490449. DOI: 10.1016/j.jor.2020.08.017.


Therapeutic Effects Comparison and Revision Case Analysis of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty and Open Wedge High Tibial Osteotomy in Treating Medial Knee Osteoarthritis in Patients Under 60 years: A 2-6-year Follow-up Study.

Ziqi Z, Yufeng M, Lei Z, Chunsheng W, Pei Y, Kunzheng W Orthop Surg. 2020; 12(6):1635-1643.

PMID: 32893481 PMC: 7767766. DOI: 10.1111/os.12761.


The learning curve of patient-specific unikondylar arthroplasty may be advantageous to off-the-shelf implants: A preliminary study.

Mayer C, Bittersohl B, Haversath M, Franz A, Krauspe R, Jager M J Orthop. 2020; 22:256-260.

PMID: 32435106 PMC: 7231819. DOI: 10.1016/j.jor.2020.05.005.


References
1.
Gulati A, Chau R, Pandit H, Gray H, Price A, Dodd C . The incidence of physiological radiolucency following Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement and its relationship to outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009; 91(7):896-902. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.91B7.21914. View

2.
Schroer W, Calvert G, Diesfeld P, Reedy M, LeMarr A . Effects of increased surgical volume on total knee arthroplasty complications. J Arthroplasty. 2008; 23(6 Suppl 1):61-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2008.03.013. View

3.
Kalra S, Smith T, Berko B, Walton N . Assessment of radiolucent lines around the Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement: sensitivity and specificity for loosening. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011; 93(6):777-81. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.93B6.26062. View

4.
Schroer W, Stormont D, Pietrzak W . Seven-year survivorship and functional outcomes of the high-flexion Vanguard complete knee system. J Arthroplasty. 2013; 29(1):61-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.018. View

5.
Chou D, Swamy G, Lewis J, Badhe N . Revision of failed unicompartmental knee replacement to total knee replacement. Knee. 2011; 19(4):356-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2011.05.002. View