Associations between hospital characteristics, volume, and reasons for revision: a cohort study of 48,029 unicompartmental knee arthroplasties with 3,397 revisions from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2025.44961Keywords:
Arthroplasty, Implants, KneeAbstract
Background and purpose: It remains debated whether high annual hospital volumes for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) are associated with a low risk of revision, and what explanations may underlie this relationship. We aimed to analyze the association between specific hospital characteristics defined as volume, type, and referral for revision, and frequency and reasons for UKA revision.
Methods: Data from primary UKAs (2007–2022) and their revisions were extracted from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Hospitals were categorized by type; academic, top clinical teaching, private, or other general hospitals. Hospitals were grouped by annual UKA volume: ≤24, 25–39, 40–79, and ≥80 procedures. Multiple linear regression assessed the relationship between the number of revisions with hospital volume and type, adjusted for confounders. Chi-squared tests were used to test for differences in revision reasons based on volume and referrals.
Results: 48,029 primary UKAs and 3,397 revisions were included. High-volume and top clinical teaching hospitals had a significantly lower risk of revision following primary UKA (P < 0.001). Cementless implants had a lower risk compared with cemented implants. Revision reasons varied by hospital volume and whether revision occurred after referral (P < 0.001). Loosening, progression of osteoarthritis, malalignment, and pain were less common in the highest volume hospitals. If revision occurred after referral, malalignment was more frequently registered as the reason for revision.
Conclusion: High-volume and top clinical teaching hospitals were associated with lower risk of revision following primary UKA. Differences in revision reasons, with fewer cases of loosening, progression of osteoarthritis, malalignment, and pain, may explain the lower risk of revision at higher volume hospitals.
Downloads
References
Dutch_Arthroplasty_Register_(LROI). Annual report. Available from: https://www.lroi.nl/media/prqogokg/pdf-lroi-report-2024.pdf; 2024 [accessed 18 October 2024].
Kleeblad L J, van der List J P, Zuiderbaan H A, Pearle A D. Larger range of motion and increased return to activity, but higher revision rates following unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in patients under 65: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2018; 26(6): 1811-22. doi: 10.1007/s00167-017-4817-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4817-y
Hansen E N, Ong K L, Lau E, Kurtz S M, Lonner J H. Unicondylar knee arthroplasty has fewer complications but higher revision rates than total knee arthroplasty in a study of large United States databases. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34(8): 1617-25. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.04.004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.04.004
Hunt L P, Blom A W, Matharu G S, Kunutsor S K, Beswick A D, Wilkinson J M, et al. Patients receiving a primary unicompartmental knee replacement have a higher risk of revision but a lower risk of mortality than predicted had they received a total knee replacement: data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man. J Arthroplasty 2021; 36(2): 471-7.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.08.063. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.08.063
Ma J, Zhang L, Wang C, Xu K, Ren Z, Wang T, et al. The mid-term outcomes of mobile bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty in the same patient. Front Surg 2023; 10:1033830. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2023.1033830. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2023.1033830
Kennedy J A, Palan J, Mellon S J, Esler C, Dodd C A F, Pandit H G, et al. Most unicompartmental knee replacement revisions could be avoided: a radiographic evaluation of revised Oxford knees in the National Joint Registry. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2020; 28(12): 3926-34. doi: 10.1007/s00167-020-05861-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-05861-5
Bini S, Khatod M, Cafri G, Chen Y, Paxton E W. Surgeon, implant, and patient variables may explain variability in early revision rates reported for unicompartmental arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95(24): 2195-202. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.L.01006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.01006
Jeschke E, Gehrke T, Günster C, Hassenpflug J, Malzahn J, Niethard F U, et al. Five-year survival of 20,946 unicondylar knee replacements and patient risk factors for failure: an analysis of German insurance data. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016; 98(20): 1691-8. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.15.01060 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.15.01060
Burger J A, Zuiderbaan H A, Sierevelt I N, van Steenbergen L, Nolte P A, Pearle A D, et al. Risk of revision for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty according to fixation and bearing type: short- to mid-term results from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Bone Joint J 2021; 103-b(7): 1261-9. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.103b7.Bjj-2020-1224.R3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.103B7.BJJ-2020-1224.R3
Mohammad H R, Bullock G S, Kennedy J A, Mellon S J, Murray D, Judge A. Cementless unicompartmental knee replacement achieves better ten-year clinical outcomes than cemented: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2021; 29(10): 3229-45. doi: 10.1007/s00167-020-06091-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-06091-5
Mohammad H R, Matharu G S, Judge A, Murray D W. The effect of surgeon caseload on the relative revision rate of cemented and cementless unicompartmental knee replacements: an analysis from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2020; 102(8): 644-53. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.19.01060. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.19.01060
Mikkelsen M, Price A, Pedersen A B, Gromov K, Troelsen A. Optimized medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty outcome: learning from 20 years of propensity score matched registry data. Acta Orthop 2022; 93: 390-6. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2022.2265. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2022.2265
Badawy M, Espehaug B, Indrekvam K, Havelin L I, Furnes O. Higher revision risk for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in low-volume hospitals. Acta Orthop 2014; 85(4): 342-7. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2014.920990. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2014.920990
Badawy M, Fenstad A M, Bartz-Johannessen C A, Indrekvam K, Havelin L I, Robertsson O, et al. Hospital volume and the risk of revision in Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the Nordic countries: an observational study of 14,496 cases. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2017; 18(1): 388. doi: 10.1186/s12891-017-1750-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-017-1750-7
Liddle A D, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray D W. Effect of surgical caseload on revision rate following total and unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016; 98(1): 1-8. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.N.00487. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.N.00487
Liddle A D, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray D W. Optimal usage of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study of 41,986 cases from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-b(11): 1506-11. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.97b11.35551. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B11.35551
van Oost I, Koenraadt K L M, van Steenbergen L N, Bolder S B T, van Geenen R C I. Higher risk of revision for partial knee replacements in low absolute volume hospitals: data from 18,134 partial knee replacements in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2020; 91(4): 426-32. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2020.1752017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2020.1752017
Gulati A, Chau R, Pandit H G, Gray H, Price A J, Dodd C A, et al. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.91B7.21914
Hoorntje A, van der Wilk S, Koenraadt-van Oost I, van Geenen R C I. Learning from the past – a substantial number of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revisions are potentially avoidable: a radiographic analysis of 98 cases. J Exp Orthop 2025; 12(2): e70205. doi: 10.1002/jeo2.70205 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jeo2.70205
Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI). Online LROI annual report 2023. Available from: https://www.lroi-report.nl/data-quality/completeness/ #Completeness-per-year [accessed 28 March 2025].
Mikkelsen M, Rasmussen L E, Price A, Pedersen A B, Gromov K, Troelsen A. Does changes in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty practice pattern influence reasons for revision? Bone Jt Open 2023; 4(12): 923-31. doi: 10.1302/2633-1462.412.Bjo-2023-0096.R1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/2633-1462.412.BJO-2023-0096.R1
Pandit H, Jenkins C, Beard D J, Gallagher J, Price A J, Dodd C A, et al. Cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement shows reduced radiolucency at one year. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009; 91(2): 185-9. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.91b2.21413. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.91B2.21413
Heyse T J, El-Zayat B F, De Corte R, Scheys L, Chevalier Y, Fuchs-Winkelmann S, et al. Balancing UKA: overstuffing leads to high medial collateral ligament strains. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2016; 24(10): 3218-28. doi: 10.1007/s00167-015-3848-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3848-5
Kerens B, Kort N P. Overstuffed medial compartment after mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2011; 19(6): 952-4. doi: 10.1007/s00167-010-1304-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-010-1304-0
Goldring M B, Otero M. Inflammation in osteoarthritis. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2011; 23(5): 471-8. doi: 10.1097/BOR.0b013e328349c2b1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/BOR.0b013e328349c2b1
ZimmerBiomet. Oxford Partial Knee Microplasty Instrumentation Surgical Technique. Available from: https://www.zimmerbiomet.com/content/dam/zb-corporate/en/education-resources/surgical-techniques/specialties/knee/oxford-partial-knee/oxford-partial-knee-microplasty-instrumentation-surgical-technique1.pdf; 2019 [accessed 12 March 2025].
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Hendrik W.H. de Raadt, Iris Koenraadt-van Oost, Anouk Nijs, Anneke Spekenbrink-Spooren, Leon Elmans, Rutger C I van Geenen
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
