Introduction
There is conflicting evidence regarding outcomes following revision of Unicompartmental Knee Replacement (UKR) to Total Knee Replacement (TKR). We hypothesise that a UKR can be successfully revised to a TKR with equivalent outcomes to primary TKR when revised for a well-defined revision diagnosis such as progression of arthritis.
Methods
From 2011 to 2023, the records of a surgeon were reviewed to identify patients who underwent revision of a UKR. Data collected included indications for revision, implant details, oxford knee scores (OKS) and survivorship. The OKS of the revision group was compared with a group of primary TKRs.
Results
A total of 21 revision UKR to TKR were included in the study. Primary Cruciate Retaining implants were used in all but 1 revision (Posterior Stabilised) with tibial sided augments or a stem required in 4. Survivorship of the revision UKRs was 95.2% at a mean of 4.37 years post-operatively. Mean OKS for the group was 37.65 with an improvement of 19.65 (p = 0.0001). Patients revised for a well-defined indication had 6-month mean OKS of 41.29, comparable to the primary TKR mean OKS of 39.5 (p = 0.535). Patients revised without confirmed pathology had mean 6-month OKS of 29.17 which was significantly worse than the remaining revision UKRs and primary TKRs (p = 0.001).
Conclusion
When a UKR is revised for a well-defined revision indication, patients can expect equivalent outcomes to primary TKR. This study also confirms that in most instances, a UKR can be successfully revised utilising primary implants with good midterm survivorship.