Conversion of Unicompartmental to Total Knee Replacement: A Comprehensive Review of Technical Considerations and Surgical Outcomes.

IF 2.4 Q2 SURGERY

JBJS Reviews Pub Date : 2025-09-22 eCollection Date: 2025-09-01 DOI:10.2106/JBJS.RVW.25.00075

Alexander Dash, Michael Mastroianni, Richard A Ruberto, Anastasia Gazgalis, Jeffrey A Geller

{"title":"Conversion of Unicompartmental to Total Knee Replacement: A Comprehensive Review of Technical Considerations and Surgical Outcomes.","authors":"Alexander Dash, Michael Mastroianni, Richard A Ruberto, Anastasia Gazgalis, Jeffrey A Geller","doi":"10.2106/JBJS.RVW.25.00075","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"» Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has seen significant growth and development over the last 15 years with improved outcomes for patients, but many of these patients may require subsequent surgeries to address failure of their UKA.» There are 3 main strategies for treatment of a failed UKA: (1) revision UKA (rUKA), (2) staging to a bicompartmental knee arthroplasty (sBiKA), and (3) conversion of UKA to total knee arthroplasty (cTKA).» Each has specific indications and contraindications, but currently, the cTKA is the gold standard for surgical treatment, and the goal of that surgery is to have equivalent outcomes to primary TKA.» There are several technical difficulties that have historically made this procedure more challenging than primary TKA with the literature showing inconsistent outcomes in terms of equivalence to primary TKA. sBiKA and rUKA are much less frequently used and more rarely represented in the literature.» Each surgical option has its own drawbacks and unique difficulties, and these surgeries likely do not yield equivalent outcomes to simple primary TKAs yet. There are a number of emerging technologic tools and modern techniques that can be implemented in the hopes of improving outcomes for this cohort of patients and have shown preliminary promise in this area.","PeriodicalId":47098,"journal":{"name":"JBJS Reviews","volume":"13 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBJS Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.25.00075","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

» Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has seen significant growth and development over the last 15 years with improved outcomes for patients, but many of these patients may require subsequent surgeries to address failure of their UKA.

» There are 3 main strategies for treatment of a failed UKA: (1) revision UKA (rUKA), (2) staging to a bicompartmental knee arthroplasty (sBiKA), and (3) conversion of UKA to total knee arthroplasty (cTKA).

» Each has specific indications and contraindications, but currently, the cTKA is the gold standard for surgical treatment, and the goal of that surgery is to have equivalent outcomes to primary TKA.

» There are several technical difficulties that have historically made this procedure more challenging than primary TKA with the literature showing inconsistent outcomes in terms of equivalence to primary TKA. sBiKA and rUKA are much less frequently used and more rarely represented in the literature.

» Each surgical option has its own drawbacks and unique difficulties, and these surgeries likely do not yield equivalent outcomes to simple primary TKAs yet. There are a number of emerging technologic tools and modern techniques that can be implemented in the hopes of improving outcomes for this cohort of patients and have shown preliminary promise in this area.

查看原文本刊更多论文

单室膝关节置换术到全膝关节置换术的转换：技术考虑和手术结果的综合回顾。

»单室膝关节置换术（UKA）在过去15年中有了显著的增长和发展，改善了患者的预后，但许多患者可能需要后续手术来解决其UKA的失败。对于失败的UKA，有3种主要的治疗策略：(1)改良UKA (rUKA),(2)分期进行双腔膝关节置换术（sBiKA），(3)将UKA转为全膝关节置换术（cTKA）。每个都有特定的适应症和禁忌症，但目前，cTKA是手术治疗的金标准，手术的目标是获得与原发性TKA相同的结果。»有一些技术上的困难使得该手术比原发性TKA更具挑战性，文献显示在与原发性TKA等效方面的结果不一致。sBiKA和rUKA的使用频率要低得多，在文献中也很少有代表。每种手术选择都有自己的缺点和独特的困难，这些手术可能还不能产生与简单的原发性tka相同的结果。有许多新兴的技术工具和现代技术可以用于改善这组患者的预后，并在这一领域显示出初步的希望。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

JBJS Reviews SURGERY-

CiteScore

4.40

自引率

4.30%

发文量

132

期刊介绍： JBJS Reviews is an innovative review journal from the publishers of The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. This continuously published online journal provides comprehensive, objective, and authoritative review articles written by recognized experts in the field. Edited by Thomas A. Einhorn, MD, and a distinguished Editorial Board, each issue of JBJS Reviews, updates the orthopaedic community on important topics in a concise, time-saving manner, providing expert insights into orthopaedic research and clinical experience. Comprehensive reviews, special features, and integrated CME provide orthopaedic surgeons with valuable perspectives on surgical practice and the latest advances in the field within twelve subspecialty areas: Basic Science, Education & Training, Elbow, Ethics, Foot & Ankle, Hand & Wrist, Hip, Infection, Knee, Oncology, Pediatrics, Pain Management, Rehabilitation, Shoulder, Spine, Sports Medicine, Trauma.