Outcomes after reoperated medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties compared with primary total and primary unicompartmental knee arthroplasties: a cohort study based on local Danish databases
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2025.45182Keywords:
Arthroplasty, KneeAbstract
Background and purpose: Tibial periprosthetic fractures (PPF), periprosthetic joint infections (PJI), and bearing dislocations (BD) are among the most common short-term complications in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (mUKA). We aim to assess whether patients with these complications have patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that differ from patients with primary mUKA, primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA), or after revision TKA .
Methods: This observational study included 74 mUKA patients reoperated for PPF (n = 22), PJI (n = 15), or BD (n =3 7) between January 2018 and January 2023. Comparator groups included 1,940 primary mUKA, 3,485 primary TKA, and 350 reoperated TKA patients. The primary endpoint was Oxford Knee Score (OKS) at 12 months. Missing data was imputed, and multilevel Tobit regression was used to analyze differences in PROMs.
Results: At 12 months, reoperated mUKAs had lower PROM scores than primary mUKAs (OKS difference –3.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] –5.0 to –1.5) and TKAs (OKS difference –2.7, CI –4.4 to –0.9) but higher than reoperated TKAs (OKS difference: 3.0, CI 1.1 to 5.0). PPF mUKAs had 12-month scores resembling reoperated TKAs (OKS difference –0.7, CI –3.9 to 2.5). PJI mUKAs and BD mUKAs had 12-month scores resembling primary mUKAs (PJI: OKS difference –2.4, CI –6.2 to 1.5, BD: OKS difference –2.2, CI –4.7 to 0.2) and primary TKAs (PJI: OKS difference –1.7, CI –5.6 to 2.1, BD: OKS-difference –1.6, CI –4.1 to 0.8).
Conclusion: Patients reoperated for PJI and BD achieved outcomes comparable to primary mUKAs and TKAs, while PPF resulted in scores lower than primary mUKAs and TKAs, comparable to reoperated TKAs.
Downloads
References
Price A, Thienpont E, Catani F, Abram S, Troelsen A. Consensus statement on unicompartmental knee replacement: a collaboration between BASK and EKS. Knee 2023; 41 391-6. doi: 10.1016/J.KNEE.2023.03.015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2023.03.015
Wilson H A, Middleton R, Abram S G F, Smith S, Alvand A, Jackson W F, et al. Patient relevant outcomes of unicompartmental versus total knee replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2019; 364. doi: 10.1136/BMJ.L352. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l352
Beard D J, Davies L J, Cook J A, MacLennan G, Price A, Kent S, et al. The clinical and cost-effectiveness of total versus partial knee replacement in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis (TOPKAT): 5-year outcomes of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2019; 394(10200): 746-56. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(19)31281-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31281-4
Bredgaard Jensen C, Lindberg-Larsen M, Kappel A, Henkel C, Mark-Christensen T, Gromov K, et al. Analysis of national real-world data on reoperations after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: insights from a high-usage country. Bone Joint J 2025; 107-B(3): 314-21. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.107B3.BJJ-2024-0290.R1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.107B3.BJJ-2024-0290.R1
Salimy M S, Paschalidis A, Dunahoe J A, Chen A F, Alpaugh K, Bedair H S, et al. Patients consistently report worse outcomes following revision total knee arthroplasty compared to primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2024; 39(2): 459-65.e1. doi: 10.1016/J.ARTH.2023.08.014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2023.08.014
Crawford D A, Berend K R, Lombardi A V. Management of the failed medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2018; 26(20): E426-E433. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-17-00107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-17-00107
Lunebourg A, Parratte S, Ollivier M, Abdel M P, Argenson J N A. are revisions of unicompartmental knee arthroplasties more like a primary or revision TKA? J Arthroplasty 2015; 30(11): 1985-9. doi: 10.1016/J.ARTH.2015.05.042. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.05.042
Lim J B T, Pang H N, Tay K J D, Chia S lu, Lo N N, Yeo S J. Clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction following revision of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty are as good as a primary total knee arthroplasty. Knee 2019; 26(4): 847-52. doi: 10.1016/J.KNEE.2019.04.016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2019.04.016
Sun X, Su Z. A meta-analysis of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revised to total knee arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Surg Res 2018; 13(1): 158. doi: 10.1186/S13018-018-0859-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-0859-1
Sabah S A, Knight R, Alvand A, Palmer A J R, Middleton R, Abram S G F, et al. Patient-relevant outcomes following first revision total knee arthroplasty, by diagnosis: an analysis of implant survivorship, mortality, serious medical complications, and patient-reported outcome measures utilizing the National Joint Registry Data Set. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2023; 105(20): 1611-21. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.23.00251. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.23.00251
Nicholls S G, Quach P, Von Elm E, Guttmann A, Moher D, Petersen I, et al. The REporting of Studies Conducted Using Observational Routinely-Collected Health Data (RECORD) Statement: methods for arriving at consensus and developing reporting guidelines. PLoS One 2015; 10(5): e1001885. doi: 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0125620. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125620
Berend K R, Berend M E, Dalury D F, Argenson J-N, Dodd C A, Scott R D. Consensus Statement on Indications and Contraindications for Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. J Surg Orthop Adv 2015; 24(4): 252-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3113/JSOA.2015.0252
Latifi R, Thomsen M G, Kallemose T, Husted H, Troelsen A. Knee awareness and functionality after simultaneous bilateral vs unilateral total knee arthroplasty. World J Orthop 2016; 7(3): 195-201. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v7.i3.195. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v7.i3.195
Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998; 80(1): 63-9. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.80B1.7859. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.80B1.0800063
Sabah S A, Alvand A, Beard D J, Price A J. Evidence for the validity of a patient-based instrument for assessment of outcome after revision knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2021; 103-B(4): 627-34. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.103B4.BJJ-2020-1560.R1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.103B4.BJJ-2020-1560.R1
Pearse A J, Hooper G J, Rothwell A, Frampton C. Survival and functional outcome after revision of a unicompartmental to a total knee replacement: the New Zealand National Joint Registry. J Bone J Surg - Ser. B 2010; 92(4): 508-12. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.92B4.22659. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.92B4.22659
Clement N D, Scott C E H, Hamilton D F, MacDonald D, Howie C R. Meaningful values in the Forgotten Joint Score after total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2021; 103-B(5): 846-54. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.103B5.BJJ-2020-0396.R1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.103B5.BJJ-2020-0396.R1
Browne J P, Bastaki H, Dawson J. What is the optimal time point to assess patient-reported recovery after hip and knee replacement? A systematic review and analysis of routinely reported outcome data from the English patient-reported outcome measures programme. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2013; 11(1): 128. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-11-128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-128
van Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K. mice: Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations in R. J. Stat. Softw 2011; 45(3): 1-67. doi: 10.18637/JSS.V045.I03. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v045.i03
Sayers A, Whitehouse M R, Judge A, MacGregor A J, Blom A W, Ben-Shlomo Y. Analysis of change in patient-reported outcome measures with floor and ceiling effects using the multilevel Tobit model: a simulation study and an example from a National Joint Register using body mass index and the Oxford Hip Score. BMJ Open 2020; 10(8): e033646. doi: 10.1136/BMJOPEN-2019-033646. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033646
Hernán M A, Hernández-Diaz S, Werler M M, Mitchell A A. Causal knowledge as a prerequisite for confounding evaluation: an application to birth defects epidemiology. Am Epidemiol 2002; 155(2): 176-84. doi: 10.1093/AJE/155.2.176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/155.2.176
Sabah S A, Alvand A, Beard D J, Price A J. Minimal important changes and differences were estimated for Oxford hip and knee scores following primary and revision arthroplasty. J Clin Epidemiol 2022; 143: 15968. doi: 10.1016/J.JCLINEPI.2021.12.016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.12.016
Craik J D, El Shafie S A, Singh V K, Twyman R S. Revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30(4): 592-4. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.10.038. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.10.038
Arndt K B, Schrøder H M, Troelsen A, Lindberg-Larsen M. Patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction 1 to 3 years after revisions of total knee arthroplasties for unexplained pain versus aseptic loosening. J Arthroplasty 2023; 38(3): 535-40.e3. doi: 10.1016/J.ARTH.2022.10.019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2022.10.019
Arndt K B, Schrøder H M, Troelsen A, Lindberg-Larsen M. Patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction after revisions of medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties for unexplained pain vs aseptic loosening. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2023; 31(11): 4766-72. doi: 10.1007/S00167-023-07483-Z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-023-07483-z
Sabah S A, Alvand A, Price A J. Revision knee replacement for prosthetic joint infection: epidemiology, clinical outcomes and health-economic considerations. Knee 2021; 28 417-21. doi: 10.1016/J.KNEE.2020.12.024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2020.12.024
Baker P, Petheram T G, Kurtz S, Konttinen Y T, Gregg P, Deehan D. Patient reported outcome measures after revision of the infected TKR: comparison of single versus two-stage revision. Knee Surg Sports Traumato Arthrosc 2013; 21(12): 2713-20. doi: 10.1007/S00167-012-2090-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-2090-7
Ingelsrud L H, Wilkinson J M, Overgaard S, Rolfson O, Hallstrom B, Navarro R A, et al. How do patient-reported outcome scores in international hip and knee arthroplasty registries compare? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2022; 480(10): 1884. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000002306
Madley-Dowd P, Hughes R, Tilling K, Heron J. The proportion of missing data should not be used to guide decisions on multiple imputation. J Clin Epidemiol 2019; 110: 63-73. doi: 10.1016/J.JCLINEPI.2019.02.016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.02.016
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Christian Bredgaard Jensen, Claus Varnum, Simon Kornvig, Kristine Ifigenia Bunyoz, Kirill Gromov, Anders Troelsen
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
