A Comparison of Clinical Thresholds for Revision Following Total and Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

AimsUnicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has higher revision rates than total knee arthroplasty (TKA). As revision of UKA may be less technically demanding than revision TKA, UKA patients with poor functional outcomes may be more likely to be offered revision than TKA patients with similar outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare clinical thresholds for revisions between TKA and UKA using revision incidence and patient-reported outcomes, in a large, matched cohort at early, mid-, and late-term follow-up.MethodsAnalyses were performed on propensity score-matched patient cohorts of TKAs and UKAs (2:1) registered in the New Zealand Joint Registry between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 2019 with an Oxford Knee Score (OKS) response at six months (n, TKA: 16,774; UKA: 8,387), five years (TKA: 6,718; UKA: 3,359), or ten years (TKA: 3,486; UKA: 1,743). Associations between OKS and revision within two years following the score were examined. Thresholds were compared using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Reasons for aseptic revision were compared using cumulative incidence with competing risk.ResultsFewer TKA patients with ‘poor’ outcomes (≤ 25) subsequently underwent revision compared with UKA at six months (5.1% vs 19.6%; p < 0.001), five years (4.3% vs 12.5%; p < 0.001), and ten years (6.4% vs 15.0%; p = 0.024). Compared with TKA, the relative risk for UKA was 2.5-times higher for ‘unknown’ reasons, bearing dislocations, and disease progression.ConclusionCompared with TKA, more UKA patients with poor outcomes underwent revision from early to long-term follow-up, and were more likely to undergo revision for ‘unknown’ reasons, which suggest a lower clinical threshold for UKA. For UKA, revision risk was higher for bearing dislocations and disease progression. There is supporting evidence that the higher revision UKA rates are associated with lower clinical thresholds for revision and additional modes of failure.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(3):269–276.