Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Our aim was to assess the outcome with respect to cumulative revision rates of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) by comparing published literature and arthroplasty registry data. Our hypothesis was that there is a superior outcome of UKA described in dependent clinical studies compared to independent studies or arthroplasty registers.
A systematic review of all clinical studies on UKA in the past decade was conducted with the main endpoint revision rate. Revision rate was calculated as “revision per 100 component years (CY)”. The respective data were analysed with regard to a potential difference of the percentage of performed revision surgeries as described in dependent and independent clinical studies. Clinical data were further compared to arthroplasty registers in a systematic search algorithm.
In total, 48 study cohorts fulfilled our inclusion criteria and revealed 1.11 revisions per 100 CY. This corresponds to a revision rate of 11.1% after 10 years. No deviations with regard to revision rates for UKA among dependent and independent clinical literature were detected. Data from four arthroplasty registers showed lower survival rates after 10 years compared to published literature without being significant.
The outcomes of UKA in dependent and independent clinical studies do not differ significantly and are in line with arthroplasty register datasets. We cannot confirm biased results and the authors recommend the use of UKAs in properly selected patients by experts in their field.
Hauer G, Sadoghi P, Bernhardt GA, Wolf M, Ruckenstuhl P, Fink A et al (2019) Greater activity, better range of motion and higher quality of life following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a comparative case–control study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-019-03296-3 CrossRefPubMed
Argenson JN, Parratte S (2006) The unicompartmental knee: design and technical considerations in minimizing wear. Clin Orthop Relat Res 452:137–142 CrossRef
Hamilton WG, Ammeen DJ, Hopper RH Jr (2014) Mid-term survivorship of minimally invasive unicompartmental arthroplasty with a fixed-bearing implant: revision rate and mechanisms of failure. J Arthroplast 29:989–992 CrossRef
Koh IJ, Kim JH, Jang SW, Kim MS, Kim C, In Y (2016) Are the Oxford((R)) medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty new instruments reducing the bearing dislocation risk while improving components relationships? A case control study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 102:183–187 CrossRef
W-Dahl A, Robertsson O, Lidgren L, Miller L, Davidson D, Graves S (2010) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients aged less than 65. Acta Orthop 81:90–94 CrossRef
Liddle AD, Judge A, Pandit H, Murray DW (2014) Adverse outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee replacement in 101,330 matched patients: a study of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet 384:1437–1445 CrossRef
National Joint Registry for England and Wales (2018). National Joint Registry. 15th Annual Report 2018. National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Available at: http://www.njrcentre.org.uk. Accessed 27 Nov 2019
Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (2018). National Joint Replacement Registry. Annual Report 2018. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/annual-reports-2018. Accessed 27 Nov 2019
Sadoghi P, Janda W, Agreiter M, Rauf R, Leithner A, Labek G (2013) Pooled outcome of total hip arthroplasty with the CementLess Spotorno (CLS) system: a comparative analysis of clinical studies and worldwide arthroplasty register data. Int Orthop 37:995–999 CrossRef
Quality of publications regarding the outcome of revision rate after arthroplasty. Final Report of the QoLA Project. Presented at the EFORT Congress 2011 in Copenhagen. http://www.ear.efort.org/downloads/E-book_QoLA%20Project_Final%20Report_EFORT%20Copenhagen. Accessed 27 Nov 2019
Pabinger C, Berghold A, Boehler N, Labek G (2013) Revision rates after knee replacement. Cumulative results from worldwide clinical studies versus joint registers. Osteoarthr Cartil 21:263–268 CrossRef
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. Open Med 3(3):e123–30 PubMed
(2016) EFORT Website for European Arthroplasty Registers, EAR Welcome. http://www.ear.efort.org. Accessed 27 Nov 2019
New Zealand National Joint Register (2018). The New Zealand Joint Register. Nineteen Year Report. New Zealand National Joint Register. http://www.cdhb.govt.nz/njr. Accessed 27 Nov 2019
Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register (2017). Annual Report 2017. http://www.myknee.se/pdf/SVK_2017_Eng_1.0.pdf. Accessed 27 Nov 2019
Pabinger C, Bridgens A, Berghold A, Wurzer P, Boehler N, Labek G (2015) Quality of outcome data in total hip arthroplasty: comparison of registry data and worldwide non-registry studies from 5 decades. Hip Int 25:394–401 CrossRef
van der List JP, Chawla H, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD (2017) Survivorship and functional outcomes of patellofemoral arthroplasty: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25:2622–2631 CrossRef
Hauer G, Vielgut I, Amerstorfer F, Maurer-Ertl W, Leithner A, Sadoghi P (2018) Survival rate of short-stem hip prostheses: a comparative analysis of clinical studies and National Arthroplasty Registers. J Arthroplast 33:1800–1805 CrossRef
Koskinen E, Eskelinen A, Paavolainen P, Pulkkinen P, Remes V (2008) Comparison of survival and cost-effectiveness between unicondylar arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty in patients with primary osteoarthritis: a follow-up study of 50,493 knee replacements from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 79:499–507 CrossRef
Koskinen E, Paavolainen P, Eskelinen A, Pulkkinen P, Remes V (2007) Unicondylar knee replacement for primary osteoarthritis: a prospective follow-up study of 1,819 patients from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 78:128–135 CrossRef
Badawy M, Espehaug B, Indrekvam K, Havelin LI, Furnes O (2014) Higher revision risk for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in low-volume hospitals. Acta Orthop 85:342–347 CrossRef
Robertsson O, Knutson K, Lewold S, Lidgren L (2001) The routine of surgical management reduces failure after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83:45–49 CrossRef
Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ, Murray DW (2010) A critique of revision rate as an outcome measure: re-interpretation of knee joint registry data. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92:1628–1631 CrossRef
van der List JP, McDonald LS, Pearle AD (2015) Systematic review of medial versus lateral survivorship in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee 22:454–460 CrossRef
Labek G, Sekyra K, Pawelka W, Janda W, Stockl B (2011) Outcome and reproducibility of data concerning the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a structured literature review including arthroplasty registry data. Acta Orthop 82:131–135 CrossRef
Labek G, Thaler M, Janda W, Agreiter M, Stockl B (2011) Revision rates after total joint replacement: cumulative results from worldwide joint register datasets. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93:293–297 CrossRef
- Similar revision rates in clinical studies and arthroplasty registers and no bias for developer publications in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty
Gerwin A. Bernhardt
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery
Including Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine
Print ISSN: 0936-8051
Elektronische ISSN: 1434-3916
Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie
Mail Icon II