Christian Bredgaard Jensen, Martin Lindberg-Larsen, Andreas Kappel, Cecilie Henkel, Troels Mark-Christensen, Kirill Gromov, Anders Troelsen
{"title":"Analysis of national real-world data on reoperations after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty : insights from a high-usage country.","authors":"Christian Bredgaard Jensen, Martin Lindberg-Larsen, Andreas Kappel, Cecilie Henkel, Troels Mark-Christensen, Kirill Gromov, Anders Troelsen","doi":"10.1302/0301-620X.107B3.BJJ-2024-0290.R1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>The aim of this study was to examine the indications for further surgery and the characteristics of the patients within one year of medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (mUKA), providing an assessment of everyday clinical practice and outcomes in a high-volume country.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All mUKAs which were performed between 1 April 2020 and 31 March 2021 and underwent further surgery within one year, from the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Registry (DKAR), were included. For primary procedures and reoperations, we received data on the characteristics of the patients, the indications for surgery, the type of procedure, and the sizes of the components individually, from each Danish private and public arthroplasty centre. All subsequent reoperations were recorded regardless of the time since the initial procedure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 2,431 primary mUKAs in 2,303 patients were reported to the DKAR during the study period and 55 patients (55 mUKAs; 2.3%; (95% CI 1.7 to 3.0)) underwent further surgery within one year. The most frequent indications for reoperation were periprosthetic fracture (n = 16; 0.7% (95% CI 0.4 to 1.1)), periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (n = 13; 0.5% (95% CI 0.3 to 0.9)), and bearing dislocation (n = 9; 0.4% (95% CI 0.2 to 0.7)). Six periprosthetic fractures were treated with internal fixation, but five of these patients later underwent revision to a total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Ten PJIs were treated with debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR). Due to persistent infection, four of these patients later underwent revision to a TKA. All nine bearing dislocations were treated with exchange of the liner, and seven occurred in patients who, based on their sex and height, probably had undersized femoral components.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Reoperations are rare following mUKA in a high-volume country. The most frequent indications for further surgery were periprosthetic fracture, PJI, and bearing dislocation. Using internal fixation to treat periprosthetic fractures after mUKA gives poor results. Whether DAIR is an appropriate form of treatment for PJI in mUKAs, and how to ensure the effective eradication of infection in these patients, remains uncertain. Undersizing the femoral component might increase the risk of bearing dislocation.</p>","PeriodicalId":48944,"journal":{"name":"Bone & Joint Journal","volume":"107-B 3","pages":"314-321"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bone & Joint Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.107B3.BJJ-2024-0290.R1","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aims: The aim of this study was to examine the indications for further surgery and the characteristics of the patients within one year of medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (mUKA), providing an assessment of everyday clinical practice and outcomes in a high-volume country.
Methods: All mUKAs which were performed between 1 April 2020 and 31 March 2021 and underwent further surgery within one year, from the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Registry (DKAR), were included. For primary procedures and reoperations, we received data on the characteristics of the patients, the indications for surgery, the type of procedure, and the sizes of the components individually, from each Danish private and public arthroplasty centre. All subsequent reoperations were recorded regardless of the time since the initial procedure.
Results: A total of 2,431 primary mUKAs in 2,303 patients were reported to the DKAR during the study period and 55 patients (55 mUKAs; 2.3%; (95% CI 1.7 to 3.0)) underwent further surgery within one year. The most frequent indications for reoperation were periprosthetic fracture (n = 16; 0.7% (95% CI 0.4 to 1.1)), periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (n = 13; 0.5% (95% CI 0.3 to 0.9)), and bearing dislocation (n = 9; 0.4% (95% CI 0.2 to 0.7)). Six periprosthetic fractures were treated with internal fixation, but five of these patients later underwent revision to a total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Ten PJIs were treated with debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR). Due to persistent infection, four of these patients later underwent revision to a TKA. All nine bearing dislocations were treated with exchange of the liner, and seven occurred in patients who, based on their sex and height, probably had undersized femoral components.
Conclusion: Reoperations are rare following mUKA in a high-volume country. The most frequent indications for further surgery were periprosthetic fracture, PJI, and bearing dislocation. Using internal fixation to treat periprosthetic fractures after mUKA gives poor results. Whether DAIR is an appropriate form of treatment for PJI in mUKAs, and how to ensure the effective eradication of infection in these patients, remains uncertain. Undersizing the femoral component might increase the risk of bearing dislocation.
期刊介绍:
We welcome original articles from any part of the world. The papers are assessed by members of the Editorial Board and our international panel of expert reviewers, then either accepted for publication or rejected by the Editor. We receive over 2000 submissions each year and accept about 250 for publication, many after revisions recommended by the reviewers, editors or statistical advisers. A decision usually takes between six and eight weeks. Each paper is assessed by two reviewers with a special interest in the subject covered by the paper, and also by members of the editorial team. Controversial papers will be discussed at a full meeting of the Editorial Board. Publication is between four and six months after acceptance.