Similar patient-reported outcomes 6 months after unicompartmental and total knee replacement for osteoarthritis: a prospective cohort study of 60,145 patients from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2026.46224Keywords:
Arthroplasty, Knee, PROMs, Uni-compartmentalAbstract
Background and purpose: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is advocated to achieve greater satisfaction and improved function when compared with total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but there is little evidence from large-scale cohorts to support this contention. We aimed to determine, from the patients’ perspective, if UKA leads to postoperative differences in satisfaction, knee pain, function, and quality of life when compared with TKA.
Methods: Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) compared PROMs scores for patients with either a UKA or TKA. EQ-5D-5L, Oxford Knee Scores (OKS), and a knee pain rating were recorded preoperatively and 6 months after surgery with additional assessments of satisfaction and patient-perceived change. Comparisons were made for change in mean score after surgery, while percentage change and proportions achieving minimal clinically important change (MCIC) were compared using odds ratios (OR).
Results: 3,329 UKAs and 56,816 TKAs were included. UKA patients had higher mean scores for all PROMs measures before surgery, and scores increased similarly to or less than for TKA patients after surgery. Mean OKS was 39 (95% confidence interval [CI] 39–39) after UKA and 38 (CI 38–38) after TKA. Compared with TKA there was a smaller change in mean OKS for the UKA group (–1.3, CI –1.6 to –1.0), which was below the threshold for MCIC. Similar proportions of patients achieved an OKS improvement which met the MCIC threshold. Quality of life improvement after surgery was equivalent for both groups (EQ-5D-5L utility change 0.3 units) as was knee pain improvement (OR 1.1, CI 0.9–1.4) with the UKA group having higher odds of being satisfied (OR 1.2, CI 1.0–1.3) and feeling better (OR 1.12, CI 1.0–1.4), compared with the TKA group.
Conclusion: Based on patient assessments, the difference between UKA and TKA did not achieve the published threshold for a minimal important difference.
Downloads
References
Cui A, Li H, Wang D, Zhong J, Chen Y, Lu H. Global, regional prevalence, incidence and risk factors of knee osteoarthritis in population-based studies. EClinicalMedicine 2020; 29-30: 100587. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100587. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100587
Wall C, de Steiger R. Pre-operative optimisation for hip and knee arthroplasty: minimise risk and maximise recovery. Aust J Gen Pract 2020; 49(11): 710-14. doi: 10.31128/AJGP-05-20-5436. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31128/AJGP-05-20-5436
Ng H J H, Loke W J, James W L H. The influence of obesity on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Bone Jt Surg 2021; 9(6): 618-32. doi: 10.22038/ABJS.2021.57357.2842.
Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Hip, Knee and Shoulder Arthroplasty 2024 Annual Report. doi: 10.25310/YWQZ9375. Available from: https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/documents/10180/1798900/AOANJRR+2024+Annual+Report.pdf/9d0bfe03-2282-8fc8-a424-b8d9abb82b1f?t=1727666185313
Williams K, Sansoni J, Morris D, Grootemaat P, Thompson C. Patient-reported outcome measures, Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care 2016. Available from: https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/sites/default/files/migrated/PROMs-Literature-Review-December-2016.pdf
Kahlenberg C A, Nwachukwu B U, McLawhorn A S, Cross M B, Cornell C N, Padgett D E. Patient satisfaction after total knee replacement: a systematic review. HSS J 2018; 14(2): 192-201. doi: 10.1007/s11420-018-9614-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-018-9614-8
Baryeh K, Maillot C, Gummaraju A, Rivière C. Disappointing relationship between functional performance and patient satisfaction of UKA patients: a cross sectional study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2021; 107(3): 102865. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2021.102865. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2021.102865
Matthews D J, Hossain F S, Patel S, Haddad F S. A cohort study predicts better functional outcomes and equivalent patient satisfaction following UKR compared with TKR. HSS J 2013; 9(1): 21-4. doi: 10.1007/s11420-012-9326-4. Erratum In: HSS J 2013; 9(2): 212. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-012-9326-4
Laigaard J, Aljuboori S M, Nikolajsen L, Mathiesen O, Lunn T H, Lindberg-Larsen M, Overgaard S. Chronic pain after primary total and medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis: a Danish nationwide cross-sectional survey. Acta Orthop 2025; 96: 814–821. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2025.44898. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2025.44898
Pongcharoen B, Liengwattanakol P, Boontanapibul K. Comparison of functional recovery between unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2023; 105(3): 191-201. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.21.00950. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.21.00950
Mohammad H R, Judge A, Murray D W. A matched comparison of the patient-reported outcome measures of 38,716 total and unicompartmental knee replacements: an analysis of linked data from the National Joint Registry of England, Northern Ireland and Isle of Man and England’s National PROM collection programme. Acta Orthop 2021; 92(6): 701-8. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2021.1956744. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2021.1956744
Liddle A D, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray D W. Patient-reported outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study of 14,076 matched patients from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B(6): 793-801. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.97B6.35155. PMID: 26033059. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B6.35155
Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Hip, Knee & Shoulder Arthroplasty: 2023 Annual Report. Adelaide: AOANJRR; 2023. doi: 10.25310/YWOZ9375.
Feng Y, Parkin D, Devlin N J. Assessing the performance of the EQ-VAS in the NHS PROMs programme. Qual Life Res 2014; 23(3): 977-89. doi: 10.1007/s11136-013-0537-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0537-z
Ackerman I N, Norman R, Harris I A, Cashman K, Lorimer M, Gill S, et al. How does the new Australian EQ-5D-5L value set impact utility scores? Analysis of data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2024; 22(5): 717-24. doi: 10.1007/s40258-024-00894-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-024-00894-0
Lin D Y, Cheok T S, Kaambwa B, Samson A J, Morrison C, Chan T, et al. Evaluation of the EQ-5D-5L, EQ-VAS stand-alone component and Oxford knee score in the Australian knee arthroplasty population utilising minimally important difference, concurrent validity, predictive validity and responsiveness. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2023; 21(1): 41. doi: 10.1186/s12955-023-02126-w. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-023-02126-w
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
Beard D J, Harris K, Dawson J, Doll H, Murray D W, Carr A J, et al. Meaningful changes for the Oxford hip and knee scores after joint replacement surgery. J Clin Epidemiol 2015; 68(1): 73-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.08.009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.08.009
Arirachakaran A, Choowit P, Putananon C, Muangsiri S, Kongtharvonskul J. Is unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) superior to total knee arthroplasty (TKA)? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2015; 25(5): 799-806. doi: 10.1007/s00590-015-1610-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-015-1610-9
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. Epub 2017 Nov 28. PMID: 29185005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4817-y
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: l352. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l352. Erratum In: BMJ. 2019; 365: l1032. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l1032. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l352
Annapareddy A, Mulpur P, Prakash M, Suhas Masilamani A B, Eachempati K K, et al. Partial versus total knee arthroplasty for isolated antero-medial osteoarthritis: an analysis of PROMs and satisfaction. SICOT J 2023; 9: 11. doi: 10.1051/sicotj/2023006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2023006
Beard D J, Davies L J, Cook J A, MacLennan G, Price A, Kent S, et al. Total versus partial knee replacement in patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis: the TOPKAT RCT. Health Technol Assess 2020; 24(20): 1-98. doi: 10.3310/hta24200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3310/hta24200
Robertsson O, Dunbar M. Pehrsson T, Knutson K, Lidgren L. Patient satisfaction after knee arthroplasty: a report on 27,372 knees operated on between 1981 and 1995 in Sweden. Acta Orthop 2000; 71(3): 262-7. doi: 10.1080/000164700317411852 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/000164700317411852
Låstad Lygre S H, Espehaug B H, Leif I, Furnes O, Vollset S E. Pain and function in patients after primary unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010; 92(18): 2890-7. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.I.00917. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.I.00917
Adriani M, Malahias M A, Gu A, Kahlenberg C A, Ast M P, Sculco P K. Determining the validity, reliability, and utility of the Forgotten Joint Score: a systematic review. J Arthroplasty 2020; 35(4): 1137-44. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.10.058. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.10.058
Bayram J M, Clement N D, Hall A J, Walmsley P, Clarke J V. Are current patient-reported outcome measures fit for purpose to evaluate unicompartmental knee arthroplasty? J Clin Med 2025; 14(1): 203. doi: 10.3390/jcm14010203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14010203
Canfield M, Savoy L, Cote M P, Halawi M J. Patient-reported outcome measures in total joint arthroplasty: defining the optimal collection window. Arthroplasty Today 2020; 6(1): 62-7. doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2019.10.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2019.10.003
Stone B, Nugent M, Young S W, Frampton C, Hooper G J. The lifetime risk of revision following total knee arthroplasty : a New Zealand Joint Registry study. Bone Joint J 2022; 104-B(2): 235-41. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.104B2.BJJ-2021-0890.R1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.104B2.BJJ-2021-0890.R1
McCormack D J, Puttock D, Godsiff S P. Medical compartment osteoarthritis of the knee: a review of surgical options. EFFORT Open Rev 2021; 6(2): 113-7. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.200102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.6.200102
Niinimäki T, Eskelinen A, Mäkelä K, Ohtonen P, Puhto A P, Remes V. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty survivorship is lower than TKA survivorship: a 27-year Finnish registry study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472(5): 1496-501. doi: 10.1007/s11999-013-3347-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-3347-2
Price A, Beard D, Thienpont E. Uncertainties surrounding the choice of surgical treatment for ‘bone on bone’ medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee. Knee 2013; 20 Suppl 1: S16-20. doi: 10.1016/S0968-0160(13)70004-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0968-0160(13)70004-8
Zaballa E, Ntani G, Harris E C, Arden N K, Cooper C, Walker-Bone K. Return to work and employment retention after uni-compartmental and total knee replacement: findings from the Clinical Outcomes in Arthroplasty study. Knee 2023; 40: 245-55. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2022.11.022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2022.11.022
Harris I A, Cashman K, Lorimer M, Peng Y, Ackerman I, Heath E, et al. Are responders to patient health surveys representative of those invited to participate? An analysis of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Pilot from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. PLoS One 2021; 16(7): e0254196. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254196. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254196
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Hannah L Fidler, George K Kiroff, Peiyao Du, Ilana N Ackerman, Helena Oakey, Peter L Lewis
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
PlumX (by Elsevier) is an altmetrics platform that tracks and visualizes the online attention, usage, captures, citations, and social media engagement.
