+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Revision for unexplained pain following unicompartmental and total knee replacement



Revision for unexplained pain following unicompartmental and total knee replacement



Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 94(17): E126



Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty has been associated with consistently worse implant survival rates than total knee arthroplasty in worldwide arthroplasty registers. The rate of revision and the proportion of revisions performed for unexplained knee pain after either a unicompartmental or total knee arthroplasty were studied to assess if there is evidence to support the hypothesis that the numbers of revisions performed for unexplained knee pain differ between these two implant types. Using data from the National Joint Registry (NJR) of England and Wales, we identified 402,714 primary knee arthroplasties (366,965 total knee arthroplasties and 35,749 unicompartmental knee arthroplasties) that were consecutively entered from April 2003 to December 2010. The status of all implants was assessed as of December 2010, at which time 6075 implants (4503 total knee implants and 1572 unicompartmental knee implants) had been revised at a maximum of eight years. Survival analysis and Cox regression analysis with adjustment of differences in age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, and indication for arthroplasty were performed with use of the end points of revision for any reason, revision for unexplained pain, and revision for other reasons. Revision for unexplained pain was more common after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty than after total knee arthroplasty (representing 23% of revisions as compared with 9% of revisions; p < 0.001). The five-year rate of revision for unexplained pain was 1.6% for the unicompartmental knee arthroplasty group and 0.2% for the total knee arthroplasty group. With use of Cox regression, the hazard ratio (HR) for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty relative to total knee arthroplasty with the end points of revision for any reason, revision for unexplained pain, and revision for all other reasons were 2.82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.66 to 2.99; p < 0.001), 6.76 (95% CI, 5.84 to 7.83; p < 0.001), and 2.39 (95% CI, 2.24 to 2.56; p < 0.001), respectively. The mean time from primary implantation to revision was similar for both implant types. While more unicompartmental knee implants than total knee implants were revised for unexplained pain, when these revisions for unexplained pain were discounted, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty still had a significantly greater risk of revision from other reasons than did total knee arthroplasty. The revision rate in isolation may not be a reliable way to compare different implant designs and should instead be considered in the context of the reason for failure.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 055564601

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 22992855

DOI: 10.2106/jbjs.k.00791


Related references

Revision total knee arthroplasty for unexplained pain after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a case report. Journal of Medical Investigation 62(3-4): 261-263, 2015

The current status of computer-assisted high tibial osteotomy, unicompartmental knee replacement, and revision total knee replacement. Instructional Course Lectures 57: 721-726, 2008

Revision of medial Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement to a total knee replacement: similar to a primary?. Knee 19(4): 339-343, 2012

Revision from unicompartmental to total knee replacement: the clinical outcome depends on reason for revision. Bone and Joint Journal 95-B(9): 1204-1208, 2013

Outcomes for revision total knee replacement after unicompartmental knee replacement. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica 48(4): 419-423, 2014

Revision of failed unicompartmental knee replacement to total knee replacement. Knee 19(4): 356-359, 2012

5-Year cost/benefit analysis of revision of failed unicompartmental knee replacements (UKRs); not "just" a primary total knee replacement (TKR). Knee 21(4): 840-842, 2014

Revision total knee arthroplasty for failed unicompartmental replacement. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 73(2): 186-190, 1991

The clinical outcome of revision knee replacement after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty: 8-17 years follow-up study of 49 patients. International Orthopaedics 34(5): 649-653, 2010

Effect of Surgical Caseload on Revision Rate Following Total and Unicompartmental Knee Replacement. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 98(1): 1-8, 2016

Blood Loss and Transfusion Rates in the Revision of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty to Total Knee Arthroplasty Are Similar to Those of Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty But Are Lower Compared With the Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty. Journal of Arthroplasty 31(1): 339-341, 2016

Medial Unicompartmental Osteoarthritis (MUO) of the Knee: Unicompartmental Knee Replacement (UKR) or Total Knee Replacement (TKR). Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery 2(3): 137-140, 2014

Survival and functional outcome after revision of a unicompartmental to a total knee replacement: the New Zealand National Joint Registry. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume 92(4): 508-512, 2010

Unicompartmental or total knee replacement? Five-year results of a prospective, randomised trial of 102 osteoarthritic knees with unicompartmental arthritis. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume 80(5): 862-865, 1998

Partial or total replacement of a unicompartmental knee prosthesis by another unicompartmental knee prosthesis: a reasonable option? About 22 cases. European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology 23(8): 933-938, 2013