Abstract
Purpose
The aim of this study was to report and compare the long-term revision rate, revision indications and patient reported outcome measures of cemented and cementless unicompartmental knee replacements (UKR).
Methods
Databases Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central of Controlled Trials were searched to identify all UKR studies reporting the ≥ 10 year clinical outcomes. Revision rates per 100 component years [% per annum (% pa)] were calculated by fixation type and then, subgroup analyses for fixed and mobile bearing UKRs were performed. Mechanisms of failure and patient reported outcome measures are reported.
Results
25 studies were eligible for inclusion with a total of 10,736 UKRs, in which there were 8790 cemented and 1946 cementless knee replacements. The revision rate was 0.73% pa (CI 0.66–0.80) and 0.45% pa (CI 0.34–0.58) per 100 component years, respectively, with the cementless having a significantly (p < 0.001) lower overall revision rate. Therefore, based on these studies, the expected 10-year survival of cementless UKR would be 95.5% and cemented 92.7%. Subgroup analysis revealed this difference remained significant for the Oxford UKR (0.37% pa vs 0.77% pa, p < 0.001), but for non-Oxford UKRs there were no significant differences in revision rates of cemented and cementless UKRs (0.57% pa vs 0.69% pa, p = 0.41). Mobile bearing UKRs had significantly lower revision rates than fixed bearing UKRs in cementless (p = 0.001), but not cemented groups (p = 0.13). Overall the revision rates for aseptic loosening and disease progression were significantly lower (p = 0.02 and p = 0.009 respectively) in the cementless group compared to the cemented group (0.06 vs 0.13% pa and 0.10 vs 0.21% pa respectively).
Conclusions
Cementless fixation had reduced long-term revision rates compared to cemented for the Oxford UKR. For the non-Oxford UKRs, the revision rates of cementless and cemented fixation types were equivalent. Therefore, cementless UKRs offer at least equivalent if not lower revision rates compared to cemented UKRs.
Level of evidence
III.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is an effective well-established treatment for anteromedial knee osteoarthritis which has failed to respond to conservative management [66]. Whilst UKR offers substantial benefits over total knee replacement (TKR) [36, 44, 67], it has a higher revision rate, particularly for aseptic loosening [7, 48, 62].
The two main types of fixation used to implant components are cemented and cementless techniques. Cemented components rely on bone cement to fix the components to surrounding trabecular bone; whereas, cementless components rely on the principle of press-fit fixation and osseointegration [39, 40, 63]. The current gold standard for knee replacements is cemented fixation [7, 48, 62] given the poor results of the first cementless knee replacements [5, 10].
There has been a recent increase in interest in cementless fixation given the need for fixation to last a patient’s lifetime with rising life expectancies [32]. Additionally, the merits of a more natural biological fixation, avoidance of cementation errors, a reduction in radiolucent lines and pain are certainly attractive [10, 27, 44].
There is currently no consensus on how the overall long-term clinical outcomes of cemented UKRs compare to cementless UKRs across the world and for different UKR types. Such a comparison would need to investigate not only the revision rate, but also the functional outcomes achieved from both fixation types. This systematic review addresses this question by comparing cemented and cementless UKR results published globally by comparing: revision rates, revision indications and PROMs. The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the revision rates of cemented and cementless UKRs.
Materials and methods
This systematic review has been registered prospectively on PROSPERO, CRD42019134315 and follows the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews (PRISMA).
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
The inclusion criteria were studies in the English language that reported the ≥ 10-year outcomes of any primary medial UKR for osteoarthritis in adult patients. Studies included were from 2009 onwards to assess the outcomes of UKRs published within the last 10 years. The most commonly used cementless UKRs were introduced after cemented versions and first widely adopted from 2009 onwards [42]. Additionally using studies before this period would include a disproportionate number of older cemented UKR studies which would not be deemed as comparable to the more recent cementless UKR studies.
Exclusion criteria included registry studies given they tend not to subdivide implants according to fixation and whether the implant is medial/lateral and to prevent duplication of patients with existing studies in the literature [7, 48]. Additionally, registries can under-report revisions [57]. Additional exclusion criteria were case reports, abstracts, hybrid UKRs and any studies in which lateral UKRs formed more than 10% of the whole cohort given our study was focusing on medial UKR outcomes. Studies of all polyethelene tibial components, bicompartmental replacements and those looking at only certain subgroups of the population were excluded given these contribute potential unnecessary confounders. Details of the number of articles actually excluded from the study based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria specified are summarised in Fig. 1.
Search strategy
Alongside an expert librarian, the databases Medline, Embase, Central were searched from their inceptions to 23/04/2019 and are summarised in the Appendix. Key words used in the search strategy included “knee arthroplasty” and “fixation” with all variations of these terms. In addition, reference lists of the included publications were also screened to identify any additional reports.
First, study duplicates were removed followed by a title and abstract screening based on eligibility criteria. All shortlisted papers had full texts extracted and were assessed. Where the same cohort was published more than once, the most recent publication using the full cohort was included. There was complete agreement between the independent authors (HRM, GSB) who screened the studies.
Outcomes of interest
The primary outcome of interest was revision. This was measured from; (1) revision rate and (2) 10-year survivals reported. Revision was defined as any removal/addition of any component to the knee joint as per the registries [7, 48, 62]. Secondary outcomes were (1) Revision indications and (2) PROMs.
The a priori analysis was to first compare fixation groups (cementless vs cemented), and then compare bearing-type (mobile vs fixed bearing) results within each fixation category.
Data collection and risk of bias
Two authors (HRM and GSB) independently extracted data from all included studies. Contact attempts were made for all authors to obtain missing information. In cases where a study reported results for both cemented and cementless fixation types, only UKR arms reporting long-term outcomes were included in the review as per the specified inclusion criteria.
All studies were assessed for risk of bias using the methodological index for evaluation of non-randomised studies (MINORs) as a percentage and an additional system based on the reporting of the primary outcome (A = clearly reported, B = not reported/unclear) and the number of cases (A > 100 cases, B 51–99 and C < 50) [10, 15, 44, 60]. Studies with a MINORs score over 80% were deemed at low risk of bias and those below 70% at high risk except those with three or more As in the primary outcomes [10, 15, 44, 60].
Data synthesis and analysis
The primary outcome, the revision rate, was calculated per 100 component years which is equivalent to the annual rate [% per annum (% pa)] as per the Australian Joint Registry [7] and previous reports [10, 25, 33, 44]. This involved dividing the total number of revisions by the total observed component years multiplied by 100 [50]. 95% confidence intervals (CI) were generated using the Clopper Pearson method [14]. Each revision indication rate was also calculated using the same methodology. Revisions and their indications per 100 component years were compared between groups using the chi-squared proportional test.
From the included studies, Campi et al. [11] reported the results for 1000 UKRs, but of these, 318 UKRs were also used in Mohammad et al.’s.[41] more recent study. The results of Campi et al’s. [11] unique 682 UKRs were obtained to prevent duplication of UKRs in the analysis. Therefore, in this systematic review, the number of UKRs reported for Campi et al. [11] is 682. This prevented overpowering the study and used the most up to date information for the cohort.
All statistical analysis was performed using Stata version 14 (STATA Corp, Texas, United States of America). p values of < 0.05 were deemed statistically significant.
Results
5835 articles were identified, which after duplicates and title/abstract screening were reduced to 39. Full text analyses deemed 25 articles eligible for inclusion (Fig. 1). Details of full text articles excluded are in Table 1. There were 21 studies [3, 4, 6, 12, 13, 16,17,18,19, 29, 31, 37, 38, 51, 55, 59, 61, 64, 65, 68, 69] reporting the long-term outcomes of cemented UKRs and 5 [11, 20, 34, 41, 59] reporting the outcomes of cementless UKRs. The majority of studies (15/25) were of the Oxford UKR (Table 2). All identified studies were observational studies with no long-term comparative studies. All studies scored low risk of bias except Aly et al. [4] (Table 3). The total number of UKRs in the cemented and cementless groups was 8790 and 1946.
Revisions by fixation type
24 out of 25 studies (n = 10,054) reported the number of revisions during the study period and the mean follow-up which allowed for quantitative analysis (Fig. 2). The only exception to this was Price et al. (n = 682) [55] which reported the median follow-up. Table 7 in the appendix summarises this in detail for each study.
The overall revision rate for the cemented and cementless groups was calculated separately. In the cemented group (n = 8108), there were 456 revisions out of 62,637 component years resulting in a revision rate of 0.73% pa (CI 0.66–0.80) (Table 7). This equates to a 10-year survival of 92.7%. In the cementless group (n = 1946), there were 57 revisions out of 12,740 component years resulting in a revision rate of 0.45% pa (CI 0.34–0.58) (Table 7). This equates to a 10-year implant survival of 95.5%. The differences between cementless and cemented revision rates were significant (p < 0.001). The revision rates are plotted in Fig. 2.
There were 13 studies of the cemented Oxford UKR (n = 6326) and 2 studies of the cementless Oxford UKR (n = 1682). For the cemented Oxford, there were 381 revisions out of 49,384 component years giving a revision rate of 0.77% pa (CI 0.70–0.85). The cementless Oxford studies reported 37 revisions out of 9874 component years giving a revision rate of 0.37% pa (CI 0.26–0.52). The difference between the revision rates was significant (p < 0.001).
There were 10 studies of non-Oxford UKRs, of which 8 had cemented UKRs (n = 1782) and 3 had cementless UKRs (n = 264). For the cemented UKRs, there were 75 revisions out of 13,253 component years giving a revision rate of 0.57% pa (CI 0.45–0.71). For the cementless UKRs, there were 20 revisions from 2866 component years giving a revision rate of 0.69% pa (CI 0.43–1.10). There were no significant differences in the cemented and cementless non-Oxford UKR study’s revision rates (p = 0.41).
Revisions by bearing type
In the cemented group (n = 8108), there were 6478 mobile bearing UKRs [3, 4, 12, 16,17,18, 29, 31, 38, 51, 59, 65, 69] and 1071 fixed bearing UKRs [6, 19, 37, 61, 64, 68] clearly indicated. Chatellard et al. [13] (n = 559) had a mixture of mobile and fixed bearing UKRs and, hence, was not included in this analysis. There were 388 revisions out of 50,934 component years and 54 revisions out of 8813 component years for mobile and fixed bearing cemented UKRs, respectively. This resulted in revision rates of 0.76% pa (CI 0.69–0.84) and 0.61% pa (CI 0.46–0.80), respectively (Fig. 3, Table 7). The corresponding 10-year implant survival for mobile and fixed cemented UKRs were 92.4% and 93.9%. The differences in revision rates between mobile and fixed bearing cemented UKRs were not significant (p = 0.13).
In the cementless group (n = 1946), there were 1760 mobile bearing UKRs [11, 41, 59] and 186 fixed bearing UKRs [20, 34]. There were 39 revisions out of 10,779 component years and 18 revisions out of 1961 component years. This resulted in revision rates of 0.36% pa (CI 0.26–0.50) and 0.92% pa (CI 0.54–1.45), respectively (Fig. 3, Table 7). The 10-year survival for mobile and fixed bearing cementless UKRs were 96.4% and 90.8% with this difference being significant (p = 0.001).
Implant survival reported
Of the 21 cemented studies, 19 studies reported the long-term survival. 15 studies reported the implant survivals at 10 years and ranged between 83.7 and 96.3% (Table 4). All 5 cementless studies reported long-term implant survivals. 3 studies reported the 10-year implant survival ranging between 96.6 and 97.5% (Table 4).
Indications for revision
All studies (23 studies, n = 9532; 7586 cemented and 1946 cementless) except Campi et al. [12] and Price et al. [55], reported the mechanisms of failure by fixation type and mean follow-up time (Table 8). The revision rates per 100 component years for aseptic loosening and disease progression were significantly lower (p = 0.02 and p = 0.009, respectively) in the cementless group compared to the cemented group (0.06 vs 0.13% pa and 0.10 vs 0.21% pa, respectively). The revision rate for polyethylene wear/impingement was significantly higher (p = 0.03) in the cementless group (0.05 vs 0.02% pa). No other revision indication was significantly different between cementless and cemented UKRs (Table 5).
Patient-reported outcome measures
13/21 cemented studies and 4/5 cementless studies reported the long-term PROMS for the overall cohort studied. Studies reporting preoperative PROMs all showed an improvement at the ≥ 10-year scores. For the cemented UKRs the 10-year OKS reported ranged between 37 and 40 and for the cementless, it ranged from 38 to 41.7 (Table 6).
Discussion
This is the first systematic review to the best of the author’s knowledge comparing the long-term outcomes of cemented and cementless UKRs. Overall cementless UKRs had a revision rate that was about one-third lower than cemented. This difference appears to be due primarily to the rates of revision for aseptic loosening more than halving.
Although historically cementless implants had a reputation of poor outcomes [10], this review suggests that they currently achieve similar if not better results than cemented implants. This review’s results are in agreement with a recent registry-based propensity-matched comparison of cemented and cementless Oxford UKRs [42], which found that the revision rate of the cementless was nearly a third less than the cemented and the revision rate for aseptic loosening more than halved. There are also concerns that cementless fixation is less forgiving than cemented and that only high-volume surgeons would benefit. However, another study has found that the merits of cementless are independent of surgeon volume [43]. Therefore, all surgeons should at least consider using cementless UKR implants.
The fact that cementless UKRs had significantly lower revision rates only for the Oxford UKRs could be because of the limited numbers in the non-Oxford implant group making it more prone to type 2 error. However despite this, the revision rates of the non-Oxford UKR fixation groups were essentially equivalent. The other possibility is the design of the Oxford UKR, which is ligament preserving with a mobile bearing resulting in predominantly compressive loads with minimal shear, and is therefore ideal for cementless fixation.
Randomised studies comparing UKR fixation showed a significant reduction of radiolucencies in cementless groups indicative of improved fixation [27, 52]. This probably explains why the rates of revision for loosening reduced. The decrease in revision rate for arthritis progression with cementless fixation is more difficult to explain. Possible explanations include cement fragments causing direct damage to the lateral compartment or cementing errors causing medial overstuffing resulting in lateral overload. The cementless Oxford UKR femoral component, compared to the cemented, has an additional anterior peg to improve fixation. To accommodate this more bone has to be removed anterior to the femoral component which may decrease the risk of the bone impinging on the bearing, which is known to increase the risk of disease progression [56]. Additionally, the overall mean follow-up weighted on each studies sample size differed between fixation groups (cemented = 7.7 years, cementless = 6.5 years). Arthritis progression tends to occur late, so the longer weighted mean follow-up in the cemented group will disproportionately increase its revision rate specifically for this indication.
No obvious differences in long-term PROMs were found between the cementless and cemented groups. However, both groups had better PROM scores than those commonly reported for TKR [46].
There are two fundamentally different design concepts for UKR; mobile and fixed bearings. The debate of which is better has been a contentious issue [49]. Theoretical advantages of a mobile bearing UKR include lower linear polyethylene wear, better long-term knee kinematics, and a more even load distribution at the implant–bone interface [35]. However, fixed bearings have the advantage of not dislocating. Our study showed that mobile bearing UKRs had significantly lower revision rates than fixed bearing UKRs in the cementless but not cemented groups. Other reviews and clinical studies, which were predominantly based on cemented components also found no differences in their outcomes [35, 45, 54].
The main limitation of this review is that all included studies were observational cohorts with no comparative control arm. Although there has been a formal comparison of the overall revision rates of cemented and cementless UKR from studies using the proportional chi-squared test, this must be interpreted with caution given this is an overall comparison between studies and not from a pooled comparison within studies. Therefore, it does not account for confounding factors, or selection bias related to the selection of patients included in these cohorts with different lengths of follow-up. There is considerable heterogeneity between studies (Fig. 2) where the revision rate can be seen to vary between studies, particularly for the cemented studies. Additionally, given the cementless studies are understandably from fewer centres, this may introduce a possible expertise bias. However it is encouraging that our results mirror those published from propensity-matched registry comparisons, which address these limitations [42]. Larger UKR numbers would cause the revision rate to fall, but this would not explain the lower revision rates in the cementless group as they had far fewer UKRs than the cemented group. Finally, the study was limited given most studies were of the Oxford UKR but this reflects the current literature and highlights the need for more long-term non-Oxford UKR studies of both fixation types.
Conclusions
Cementless fixation offers lower long-term revision rates than cemented, particularly in mobile bearing UKR, with a reduction in aseptic loosening rates suggesting improved fixation. All surgeons should, therefore, at least consider using cementless UKRs in their practice.
Abbreviations
- AKSS-O:
-
American Knee Society Score (Objective)
- AKSS-F:
-
American Knee Society Score (Functional)
- CENTRAL:
-
Cochrane Central of Controlled Trials
- CI:
-
Confidence interval
- HSS:
-
Hospital for Special Surgery knee score
- KSS:
-
Knee Society Score
- MINOR:
-
Methodological index for evaluation of non-randomised studies
- OKS:
-
Oxford Knee Score
- pa:
-
Per annum
- PROM:
-
Patient-reported outcome measure
- PRIMSA:
-
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses
- TKR:
-
Total knee replacement
- WOMAC:
-
Western Ontario and McMaster universities arthritis index
- UKR:
-
Unicompartmental knee replacement
References
Abdulkarim A, Motterlini N, O'Donnell TM, Neil MJ (2013) The influence of patellofemoral degenerative changes on the outcome of the unicompartmental knee replacement. Ir J Med Sci 2:S56–S57
Ali AM, Pandit H, Liddle AD, Jenkins C, Mellon S, Dodd CA et al (2016) Does activity affect the outcome of the Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement? Knee 23:327–330
Alnachoukati OK, Barrington JW, Berend KR, Kolczun MC, Emerson RH, Lombardi AV Jr et al (2018) Eight hundred twenty-five medial mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasties: the first 10-year US Multi-Center Survival Analysis. J Arthroplasty 33:677–683
Aly T, Mousa W, El-Sallakh S (2010) The Oxford unicompartmental knee prosthesis: midterm follow-up. Curr Orthop Pract 21:187–189
Aprato A, Risitano S, Sabatini L, Giachino M, Agati G, Massè A (2016) Cementless total knee arthroplasty. Ann Transl Med 4(7):129
Argenson JNA, Blanc G, Aubaniac JM, Parratte S (2013) Modern unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cement: a concise follow-up, at a mean of twenty years, of a previous report. J Bone Surg Am 95:905–909
Australian Orthopaedic Association (2018) Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). Annual Report: Hip, Knee & Shoulder Arthroplasty
Bottomley N, Jones LD, Rout R, Alvand A, Rombach I, Evans T et al (2016) A survival analysis of 1084 knees of the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a comparison between consultant and trainee surgeons. Bone Jt J 98-B:22–27
Bray RL, White P, Howells N, Robinson JR, Porteous AJ, Murray JR (2017) Minimum 20-year survivorship of the St Georg sled medial unicompartmental knee replacement. Knee 24(6):XIV
Campi S, Pandit H, Dodd C, Murray D (2017) Cementless fixation in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25:736–745
Campi S, Pandit H, Hooper G, Snell D, Jenkins C, Dodd CAF et al (2018a) Ten-year survival and seven-year functional results of cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement: a prospective consecutive series of our first 1000 cases. Knee 25:1231–1237
Campi S, Pandit HG, Oosthuizen CR (2018b) The Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: the South African experience. J Arthroplasty 33:1727–1731
Chatellard R, Sauleau V, Colmar M, Robert H, Raynaud G, Brilhault J et al (2013) Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: does tibial component position influence clinical outcomes and arthroplasty survival? Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 99:S219–225
Clopper CJ, Pearson ES (1934) The use of confidence or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial. Biometrika 26:404–413
de Vos-Kerkhof E, Geurts DH, Wiggers M, Moll HA, Oostenbrink R (2016) Tools for ‘safety netting’in common paediatric illnesses: a systematic review in emergency care. Arch Dis Child 101:131–139
Edmondson M, Atrey A, East D, Ellens N, Miles K, Goddard R et al (2015) Survival analysis and functional outcome of the Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement up to 11 years follow up at a District General Hospital. J Orthop 12:S105–S110
Emerson RH, Alnachoukati O, Barrington J, Ennin K (2016) The results of Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the United States: a mean ten-year survival analysis. Bone Jt J 98-B:34–40
Faour-Martin O, Valverde-Garcia JA, Martin-Ferrero MA, Vega-Castrillo A, de la Red Gallego MA, Suarez de Puga CC et al (2013) Oxford phase 3 unicondylar knee arthroplasty through a minimally invasive approach: long-term results. Int Orthop 37:833–838
Foran JR, Brown NM, Della Valle CJ, Berger RA, Galante JO (2013) Long-term survivorship and failure modes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:102–108
Hall MJ, Connell DA, Morris HG (2013) Medium to long-term results of the UNIX uncemented unicompartmental knee replacement. Knee 20:328–331
Hamilton TW, Choudhary R, Jenkins C, Mellon SJ, Dodd CAF, Murray DW et al (2017) Lateral osteophytes do not represent a contraindication to medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a 15-year follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25:652–659
Hamilton TW, Pandit HG, Jenkins C, Mellon SJ, Dodd CAF, Murray DW (2017) Evidence-based indications for mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in a consecutive cohort of thousand knees. J Arthroplasty 32:1779–1785
Hamilton TW, Pandit HG, Maurer DG, Ostlere SJ, Jenkins C, Mellon SJ et al (2017) Anterior knee pain and evidence of osteoarthritis of the patellofemoral joint should not be considered contraindications to mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a 15-year follow-up. Bone Jt J 99-B:632–639
Hamilton TW, Pistritto C, Jenkins C, Mellon SJ, Dodd CA, Pandit HG et al (2016) Unicompartmental knee replacement: Does the macroscopic status of the anterior cruciate ligament affect outcome? Knee 23:506–510
Hamilton TW, Rizkalla JM, Kontochristos L, Marks BE, Mellon SJ, Dodd CA et al (2017) The interaction of caseload and usage in determining outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 32(3228–3237):e3222
Heyse TJ, Khefacha A, Peersman G, Cartier P (2012) Survivorship of UKA in the middle-aged. Knee 19:585–591
Kendrick B, Kaptein B, Valstar E, Gill H, Jackson W, Dodd C et al (2015) Cemented versus cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using radiostereometric analysis: a randomised controlled trial. Bone Jt J 97:185–191
Kennedy JA, Matharu GS, Hamilton TW, Mellon SJ, Murray DW (2018) Age and outcomes of medial meniscal-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 33:3153–3159
Kim KT, Lee S, Kim JH, Hong SW, Jung WS, Shin WS (2015) The survivorship and clinical results of minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at 10-year follow-up. Clin Orthop Surg 7:199–206
Kim YJ, Kim BH, Yoo SH, Kang SW, Kwack CH, Song MH (2017) Mid-term results of oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in young asian patients less than 60 years of age: a minimum 5-year follow-up. Knee Surg Relat Res 29:122–128
Kristensen PW, Holm HA, Varnum C (2013) Up to 10-year follow-up of the Oxford medial partial knee arthroplasty—695 cases from a single institution. J Arthroplasty 28:195–198
Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Zhao K, Kelly M, Bozic KJ (2009) Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement: national projections from 2010 to 2030. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:2606–2612
Labek G, Sekyra K, Pawelka W, Janda W, Stöckl B (2011) Outcome and reproducibility of data concerning the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a structured literature review including arthroplasty registry data. Acta Orthop 82:131–135
Lecuire F, Berard JB, Martres S (2014) Minimum 10-year follow-up results of ALPINA cementless hydroxyapatite-coated anatomic unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 24:385–394
Li MG, Yao F, Joss B, Ioppolo J, Nivbrant B, Wood D (2006) Mobile vs. fixed bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a randomized study on short term clinical outcomes and knee kinematics. Knee 13:365–370
Liddle AD, Judge A, Pandit H, Murray DW (2014) Adverse outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee replacement in 101 330 matched patients: a study of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet 384:1437–1445
Lim JW, Chen JY, Chong HC, Pang HN, Tay DKJ, Chia SL et al (2018) Pre-existing patellofemoral disease does not affect 10-year survivorship in fixed bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27(6):2030–2036
Lisowski L, Meijer L, Mvd B, Pilot P, Lisowski A (2016) Ten-to 15-year results of the Oxford Phase III mobile unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective study from a non-designer group. Bone Joint J 98:41–47
Matassi F, CarullI C, Civinini R, Innocenti M (2013) Cemented versus cementless fixation in total knee arthroplasty. Joints 1:121–125
Mohammad HR, Campi S, Murray D, Mellon S (2018) Instruments to reduce the risk of tibial fracture following cementless unicompartmental knee replacement. Knee 25:988–996
Mohammad HR, Kennedy JA, Mellon SJ, Judge A, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2019) Ten-year clinical and radiographic results of 1000 cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacements. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05544-w
Mohammad HR, Matharu GS, Judge A, Murray DW (2020) Comparison of the 10-year outcomes of cemented and cementless unicompartmental knee replacements: data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. Acta Orthop 91(1):76–81
Mohammad HR, Matharu GS, Judge A, Murray DW (2020) The Effect of Surgeon Caseload on the Relative Revision Rate of Cemented and Cementless Unicompartmental Knee Replacements: An Analysis from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. J Bone Jt Surg Am. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.19.01060
Mohammad HR, Strickland L, Hamilton TW, Murray DW (2018) Long-term outcomes of over 8,000 medial Oxford Phase 3 Unicompartmental Knees—a systematic review. Acta Orthop 89(1):101–107
Murphy R, Fraser T, Mihalko W (2015) Mobile versus fixed bearing medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a series of 375 patients. Reconstr Rev. https://doi.org/10.15438/rr.5.1.96
Murray DW, MacLennan GS, Breeman S, Dakin HA, Johnston L, Campbell MK et al (2014) A randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different knee prostheses: the Knee Arthroplasty Trial (KAT). Health Technol Assess 18(19):1–235
Naouar N, Kaziz H, Mouelhi T, Bouattour K, Mseddi M, Ben Ayeche ML (2016) Evaluation at long term follow up of medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in young patients. Tunis Med 94:66–71
National Joint Registry (2018) National Joint Registry 15th Annual Report. National joint registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Isle of Man. Accessed 12 Jan 2019.
Neufeld ME, Albers A, Greidanus NV, Garbuz DS, Masri BA (2018) A comparison of mobile and fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum 10-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 33:1713–1718
Pabinger C, Lumenta DB, Cupak D, Berghold A, Boehler N, Labek G (2015) Quality of outcome data in knee arthroplasty: comparison of registry data and worldwide non-registry studies from 4 decades. Acta Orthop 86:58–62
Pandit H, Hamilton TW, Jenkins C, Mellon SJ, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2015) The clinical outcome of minimally invasive Phase 3 Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a 15-year follow-up of 1000 UKAs. Bone Jt J-B 97:1493–1500
Pandit H, Liddle A, Kendrick B, Jenkins C, Price A, Gill H et al (2013) Improved fixation in cementless unicompartmental knee replacement: five-year results of a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Jt Surg Am 95:1365–1372
Parratte S, Argenson JNA, Pearce O, Pauly V, Auquier P, Aubaniac JM (2009) Medial unicompartmental knee replacement in the under-50s. Bone Jt J 91:351–356
Peersman G, Stuyts B, Vandenlangenbergh T, Cartier P, Fennema P (2015) Fixed-versus mobile-bearing UKA: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:3296–3305
Price AJ, Svard U (2011) A second decade lifetable survival analysis of the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:174–179
Psychoyios V, Crawford R, Murray D, O’Connor J (1998) Wear of congruent meniscal bearings in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a retrieval study of 16 specimens. Bone Jt J 80:976–982
Sabah S, Henckel J, Koutsouris S, Rajani R, Hothi H, Skinner J et al (2016) Are all metal-on-metal hip revision operations contributing to the National Joint Registry implant survival curves? A study comparing the London Implant Retrieval Centre and National Joint Registry datasets. Bone Jt J 98:33–39
Saragaglia D, Bevand A, Refaie R, Rubens-Duval B, Pailhe R (2018) Results with nine years mean follow up on one hundred and three KAPS uni knee arthroplasties: eighty six medial and seventeen lateral. Int Orthop 42:1061–1066
Schlueter-Brust K, Kugland K, Stein G, Henckel J, Christ H, Eysel P et al (2014) Ten year survivorship after cemented and uncemented medial uniglide unicompartmental knee arthroplasties. Knee 21:964–970
Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J (2003) Methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 73:712–716
Song EK, Lee SH, Na BR, Seon JK (2016) Comparison of outcome and survival after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty between navigation and conventional techniques with an average 9-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 31:395–400
New Zealand Orthopaedic Association (2017) The New Zealand Joint Registry: Seventeen Year Report January 1999 to December 2015
Vaishya R, Chauhan M, Vaish A (2013) Bone cement. J Clin Orthop Trauma 4:157–163
Venkatesh HK, Maheswaran SS (2016) Mid-term results of Miller–Galante unicompartmental knee replacement for medial compartment knee osteoarthritis. J Orthop Traumatol 17:199–206
White SH, Roberts S, Kuiper JH (2018) The twin peg Oxford knee—medium term survivorship and surgical principles. Knee 25:314–322
Willis-Owen CA, Brust K, Alsop H, Miraldo M, Cobb JP (2009) Unicondylar knee arthroplasty in the UK National Health Service: an analysis of candidacy, outcome and cost efficacy. Knee 16:473–478
Wilson HA, Middleton R, Abram SG, Smith S, Alvand A, Jackson WF et al (2019) Patient relevant outcomes of unicompartmental versus total knee replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 364:l352
Winnock de Grave P, Barbier J, Luyckx T, Ryckaert A, Gunst P, Van den Daelen L (2018) Outcomes of a fixed-bearing, medial, cemented unicondylar knee arthroplasty design: survival analysis and functional score of 460 cases. J Arthroplasty 33:2792–2799
Yoshida K, Tada M, Yoshida H, Takei S, Fukuoka S, Nakamura H (2013) Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in Japan—clinical results in greater than one thousand cases over ten years. J Arthroplasty 28:168–171
Funding
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
HRM, GSB, JAK, SJM, AJ and DM designed the study. HRM and GSB collected and analysed the data with statistical support from AJ and DM. HRM, GSB, JAK, SJM, AJ and DM helped with data interpretation. HRM wrote the initial manuscript draft which was then revised appropriately by all authors prior to submission. All authors were involved in the study design, analysis, interpretation of findings and writing of the submitted manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author or one or more of the authors have received or will receive benefits for personal or professional use from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article. In addition, benefits have been or will be directed to a research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other non-profit organisation with which one or more of the authors are associated. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not for profit sectors. HRM was supported by Royal College of Surgeons Research Fellowship and the University of Oxford’s Henni Mester scholarship. AJ was supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at the University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix
Database searches
MEDLINE search
-
1.
Knee/ or exp Knee Joint/ or Osteoarthritis, Knee/
-
2.
knee*.tw.
-
3.
1 or 2
-
4.
Knee Prosthesis/ or Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee/
-
5.
(knee* and (arthroplast* or implant* or replace* or prosthe* or endoprosthe*)).tw.
-
6.
4 or 5
-
7.
"Prostheses and Implants"/
-
8.
3 and 7
-
9.
6 or 8
-
10.
Cementation/
-
11.
Bone Cements/
-
12.
exp Hydroxyapatites/
-
13.
(cement* or uncement* or hydroxyapatite or durapatite or hybrid or porous* or coat* or press-fit* or fixation or implant*).tw.
-
14.
10 or 11 or 12 or 13
-
15.
9 and 14
-
16.
15
-
17.
limit 16 to english language
-
18.
Osteoarthritis, Knee/
-
19.
osteoarthr*.tw.
-
20.
18 or 19
-
21.
17 and 20
EMBASE search
-
1.
knee/
-
2.
knee*.tw.
-
3.
1 or 2
-
4.
exp knee arthroplasty/
-
5.
exp knee prosthesis/
-
6.
(knee* adj2 (arthroplast* or implant* or replace* or prosthe* or endoprosthe*)).tw.
-
7.
4 or 5 or 6
-
8.
exp implantation/
-
9.
3 and 8
-
10.
7 or 9
-
11.
cementation/
-
12.
hydroxyapatite/
-
13.
(cement* or uncement* or hydroxyapatite or durapatite or hybrid or porous* or coat* or press-fit* or fixation or implant*).tw.
-
14.
11 or 12 or 13
-
15.
knee osteoarthritis/
-
16.
(knee and osteoarthr*).ti,ab.
-
17.
15 or 16
-
18.
10 and 14 and 17
-
19.
18
-
20.
limit 19 to english language
CENTRAL search
-
1.
MeSH descriptor: [Knee] explode all trees
-
2.
MeSH descriptor: [Knee Joint] explode all trees
-
3.
knee*
-
4.
#1 OR #2 OR #3
-
5.
MeSH descriptor: [Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee] explode all trees
-
6.
MeSH descriptor: [Knee Prosthesis] explode all trees
-
7.
(knee* and (arthroplast* or implant* or replace* or prosthe* or endoprosthe*))
-
8.
#5 OR #6 OR #7
-
9.
MeSH descriptor: [Prostheses and Implants] explode all trees
-
10.
#4 AND #9
-
11.
#8 OR #10
-
12.
MeSH descriptor: [Cementation] explode all trees
-
13.
MeSH descriptor: [Bone Cements] explode all trees
-
14.
MeSH descriptor: [Durapatite] explode all trees
-
15.
(cement* or uncement* or hydroxyapatite or durapatite or hybrid or porous* or coat* or press-fit* or fixation or implant*)
-
16.
#12 OR #13 OR #14 OR #15
-
17.
osteoarthr*
-
18.
#11 AND #16 AND #17
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mohammad, H.R., Bullock, G., Kennedy, J. et al. Cementless unicompartmental knee replacement achieves better ten-year clinical outcomes than cemented: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 29, 3229–3245 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-06091-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-06091-5