Advantages and limitations of mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: an overview of the literature

References

• O’Connor J, Goodfellow J, Perry N. Fixation of the tibial components of the Oxford knee. Orthop Clin North Am [Internet]. 1982;13(1):65–87. doi: 10.1016/S0030-5898(20)30268-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodfellow J, O’Connor J. The mechanics of the knee and prosthesis design. J Bone Joint Surg Br [Internet]. 1978;60-B(3):358–369. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.60B3.581081
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ranawat CS, Shine JJ. Duo-condylar total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res [Internet]. 1973;(94):185–195. doi: 10.1097/00003086-197307000-00023
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ranawat CS, Insall J, Shine J. Duo-condylar knee arthroplasty: hospital for special surgery design. Clin Orthop Relat Res [Internet]. 1976;&NA;(120):76–82. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/975669
   Google Scholar
• Maloney WJ, Schurman DJ. The effects of implant design on range of motion after total knee arthroplasty. Total condylar versus posterior stabilized total condylar designs. Clin Orthop Relat Res [Internet]. 1992;278:147–152. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1563146
   Google Scholar
• Murray DW, Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ. The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a ten-year survival study. J Bone Joint Surg Br [Internet]. 1998;80(6):983–989. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.80b6.8177
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Murray DW, Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ. The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br [Internet]. 1998;80-B(6):983–989. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.80B6.0800983
   Google Scholar
• Goodfellow JW, Kershaw CJ, Benson Jjo MK. The Oxford knee for unicompartmental osteoarthritis. The first 103 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1988;70(5):692–701. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.70B5.3192563
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Australian orthopaedic association national joint replacement registry hip, knee & shoulder arthroplasty 2022 ANNUAL REPORT. Available from: https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/documents/10180/732916/AOA+2022+AR+Digital/f63ed890-36d0-c4b3-2e0b-7b63e2071b16
   Google Scholar
• The New Zealand joint registry 21 year report. Available from: https://www.nzoa.org.nz/sites/default/files/DH8426_NZJR_2020_Report_v5_30Sep.pdf
   Google Scholar
• The ninth annual report of the AJRR on hip and knee arthroplasty ANNUAL REPORT 2022. Available from: https://connect.registryapps.net/hubfs/PDFs%20and%20PPTs/2022%20AJRR%20Annual%20Report.pdf?hsCtaTracking=e22b6617-7eba-4a95-8113-7aa80eb589d1%7C9509b20f-338c-45c0-aeb2-16a46cffd1d2
   Google Scholar
• National Joint Registry. 18th annual report [Internet]. [cited 2021 Jan 8]. Available from: https://reports.njrcentre.org.uk/Portals/0/PDFdownloads/NJR%2018th%20Annual%20Report%202021.pdf
   Google Scholar
• The Japanese society for replacement arthroplasty 2021 annual report. Available from: https://jsra.info/data/pdf/report-2021.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Liddle AD, Judge A, Pandit H, et al. 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. The Lancet [Internet]. 2014;384(9952):1437–1445. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60419-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Price AJ, Webb J, Topf H, et al. Rapid recovery after Oxford unicompartmental arthroplasty through a short incision. J Arthroplasty [Internet]. 2001;16:970–976. doi: 10.1054/arth.2001.25552
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hiranaka T, Tanaka T, Fujishiro T, et al. Is postoperative flexion angle genuinely better in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty than in total knee arthroplasty? A comparison between the knees in the same patients. Knee. 2020; In press.
   Google Scholar
• Yamagami R, Inui H, Jo T, et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is associated with lower proportions of surgical site infection compared with total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective nationwide database study. Knee [Internet]. 2021;28:124–130. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2020.11.017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma J, Zhang L, Wang C, et al. The mid-term outcomes of mobile bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty in the same patient. Front Surg [Internet]. 2023;10:1033830. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2023.1033830
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suarez JC, Saxena A, Arguelles W, et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty vs total knee arthroplasty: a risk-adjusted comparison of 30-day outcomes using national data from 2014 to 2018. Arthroplast Today [Internet]. 2022;17:114–119. doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2022.06.017
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wang L, Wang Q, Li Q, et al. A comparative study of total knee arthroplasty and unicondylar knee arthroplasty in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Contrast Media Mol Imaging [Internet]. 2022;2022:7795801. doi: 10.1155/2022/7795801
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun P-F, Jia Y-H. Mobile bearing UKA compared to fixed bearing TKA: a randomized prospective study. Knee [Internet]. 2012;19(2):103–106. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2011.01.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Price AJ, Rees JL, Beard DJ, et al. Sagittal plane kinematics of a mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at 10 years: a comparative in vivo fluoroscopic analysis. J Arthroplasty [Internet]. 2004;19:590–597. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2003.12.082
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahn JH, Kang DM, Choi KJ. Bilateral simultaneous unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus unilateral total knee arthroplasty: a comparison of the amount of blood loss and transfusion, perioperative complications, hospital stay, and functional recovery. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res [Internet]. 2017;103:1041–1045. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2017.06.014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Argenson JN, O’Connor JJ. Polyethylene wear in meniscal knee replacement. A one to nine-year retrieval analysis of the Oxford knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br [Internet]. 1992;74(2):228–232. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.74B2.1544958
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Price AJ, Short A, Kellett C, et al. Ten-year in vivo wear measurement of a fully congruent mobile bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br [Internet]. 2005;87(11):1493–1497. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.87B11.16325
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kendrick BJL, Longino D, Pandit H, et al. Polyethylene wear in Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement a RETRIEVAL STUDY of 47 BEARINGS. The J Bone Joint Surg Br [Internet]. 2010;92(3):367–373. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.92B3.22491
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mohammad HR, Campi S, Kennedy JA, et al. Long-term in vivo wear of different bearing types used for the Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement. Bone Joint Res [Internet]. 2019;8(11):535–543. doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.811.BJR-2019-0163.R1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mullaji AB, Shetty GM, Kanna R. Postoperative limb alignment and its determinants after minimally invasive Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty [Internet]. 2011;26:919–925. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2011.03.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Insall JN, Binazzi R, Soudry M, et al. Total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res [Internet]. 1985;192:13–22. doi: 10.1097/00003086-198501000-00003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ji S, Huang Y, Zhou Y, et al. Pre-operative predictive factors of residual varus on the mechanical axis after Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Front Surg [Internet]. 2022;9:1054351. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.1054351
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pandit H, Jenkins C, Beard DJ, et al. Mobile bearing dislocation in lateral unicompartmental knee replacement. Knee [Internet]. 2010;17(6):392–397. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2009.10.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker T, Zahn N, Bruckner T, et al. Mid-term results of lateral unicondylar mobile bearing knee arthroplasty: a multicentre study of 363 cases. Bone Joint J [Internet]. 2018;100-B(1):42–49. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.100B1.BJJ-2017-0600.R1
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gunther TV, Murray DW, Miller R, et al. Lateral unicompartmental arthroplasty with the Oxford meniscal knee. Knee [Internet]. 1996;3(1–2):33–39. doi: 10.1016/0968-0160(96)00208-6
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy JA, Mohammad HR, Yang I, et al. Oxford domed lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J [Internet]. 2020;102-B(8):1033–1040. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.102B8.BJJ-2019-1330.R2
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hariri M, Hagemann M, Koch K-A, et al. Short- to mid-term results of minimally invasive lateral unicompartmental knee replacement: 133 cases in a non-designer series. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg [Internet]. 2023;143:5849–5856. doi: 10.1007/s00402-023-04841-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bitsch RG, von Keudell A, Losina E, et al. Good accuracy of the phase III Oxford mobile bearing unicompartmental knee instrumentation. Acta Orthop [Internet]. 2013;84(4):406–409. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2013.813801
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lisowski LA, van den Bekerom MPJ, Pilot P, et al. Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: medium-term results of a minimally invasive surgical procedure. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc [Internet]. 2011;19:277–284. doi: 10.1007/s00167-010-1213-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lisowski LA, Verheijen PM, Lisowski AE. Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA): clinical and radiological results of minimum follow-up of 2 years. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil [Internet]. 2004;6(6):773–776. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17618193
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhang Q, Zhang Q, Guo W, et al. The learning curve for minimally invasive Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: cumulative summation test for learning curve (LC-CUSUM). J Orthop Surg Res [Internet]. 2014;9:81. doi: 10.1186/s13018-014-0081-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ZimmerBiomet. Oxford partial knee microplasty instrumentation surgical technique [Internet]. [cited 2022 May 15]. Available from: https://www.zimmerbiomet.com/content/dam/zimmer-biomet/medical-professionals/000-surgical-techniques/knee/oxford-partial-knee-microplasty-instrumentation-surgical-technique.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Koh IJ, Kim JH, Jang SW, et al. Are the Oxford® medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty new instruments reducing the bearing dislocation risk while improving components relationships? A case control study. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research [Internet]. 2016;102(2):183–187. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2015.11.015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tu Y, Xue H, Ma T, et al. Superior femoral component alignment can be achieved with Oxford microplasty instrumentation after minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc [Internet]. 2017;25:729–735. doi: 10.1007/s00167-016-4173-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ng JP, Fan JCH, Lau LCM, et al. Can accuracy of component alignment be improved with Oxford UKA microplasty® instrumentation? J Orthop Surg Res [Internet]. 2020;15:354. doi: 10.1186/s13018-020-01868-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alvand A, Wilson HA, Sabah SA, et al. New instrumentation system for cementless mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty improves surgical performance particularly for trainees. Knee [Internet]. 2021;31:46–53. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2021.05.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamilton TW, Pandit HG, Jenkins C, et al. Evidence-based indications for mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in a consecutive cohort of thousand knees. J Arthroplasty [Internet]. 2017;32:1779–1785. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.12.036
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berend KR, Berend ME, Dalury DF, et al. Consensus statement on indications and contraindications for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Surg Orthop Adv [Internet]. 2015;24(4):252–256. doi: 10.3113/jsoa.2015.0252
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• White SH, Ludkowski PF, Goodfellow JW. Anteromedial osteoarthritis of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991;73-B(4):582–586. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.73B4.2071640
   Google Scholar
• Gibson PH, Goodfellow JW. Stress radiography in degenerative arthritis of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br [Internet]. 1986;68(4):608–609. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3733839
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ZimmerBiomet. Radiographic assessment for medial Oxford partial knee replacement [Internet]. [cited 2021 Sep 25]. Available from: https://www.oxfordpartialknee.net/content/dam/zb-minisites/oxford-partial-knee-hcp/documents/oxford-decision-aid-flyer.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kamenaga T, Hiranaka T, Hida Y, et al. Clinical Outcomes After Unicompartmental Knee Aarthroplasty for Oosteonecrosis of the Kknee. Acta Ortop Bras [Internet]. 2021;29(1):12–16. doi: 10.1590/1413-785220212901233328
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fukuoka S, Fukunaga K, Taniura K, et al. Medium-term clinical results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for the treatment for spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee with four to 15 years of follow-up. Knee [Internet]. 2019;26(5):1111–1116. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2019.06.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamilton TW, Pandit HG, Lombardi AV, et al. Radiological decision aid to determine suitability for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: development and preliminary validation. Bone Joint J [Internet]. 2016;98-B(10_Supple_B):3–10. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B10.BJJ-2016-0432.R1
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kozinn SC, Scott R. Unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am [Internet]. 1989;71(1):145–150. doi: 10.2106/00004623-198971010-00023
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Beard DJ, Pandit H, Ostlere S, et al. Pre-operative clinical and radiological assessment of the patellofemoral joint in unicompartmental knee replacement and its influence on outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Br [Internet]. 2007;89-B(12):1602–1607. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.89B12.19260
   Google Scholar
• Munk S, Odgaard A, Madsen F, et al. Preoperative lateral subluxation of the patella is a predictor of poor early outcome of Oxford phase-III medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop [Internet]. 2011;82(5):582–588. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2011.618915
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pandit H, Jenkins C, Gill HS, et al. Unnecessary contraindications for mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee replacement. Bone Joint J [Internet]. 2011;93-B(5):622–628. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.93B5.26214
   Google Scholar
• Hamilton TW, Choudhary R, Jenkins C, et al. Lateral osteophytes do not represent a contraindication to medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a 15-year follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc [Internet]. 2017;25:652–659. doi: 10.1007/s00167-016-4313-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar V, Pandit HG, Liddle AD, et al. Comparison of outcomes after UKA in patients with and without chondrocalcinosis: a matched cohort study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc [Internet]. 2017;25:319–324. doi: 10.1007/s00167-015-3578-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molloy J, Kennedy J, Jenkins C, et al. Obesity should not be considered a contraindication to medial Oxford UKA: long-term patient-reported outcomes and implant survival in 1000 knees. 2019;27(7):2259–2265. doi: 10.1007/s00167-018-5218-6
   Google Scholar
• Lee M, Chen J, Shi Lu C, et al. No differences in outcomes scores or survivorship of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty between patients younger or older than 55 years of age at minimum 10-year followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res [Internet]. 2019;477:1434–1446. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000737
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mannan A, Pilling RWD, Mason K, et al. Excellent survival and outcomes with fixed-bearing medial UKA in young patients (≤ 60 years) at minimum 10-year follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc [Internet]. 2020;28:3865–3870. doi: 10.1007/s00167-020-05870-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ge J, Liu C, Sun X, et al. Gap balance difference of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty between hanging leg and supine leg position: a prospective cohort study. Int Orthop [Internet]. 2023;47:745–753. doi: 10.1007/s00264-022-05680-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pandit H, Jenkins C, Beard DJ, et al. Cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement shows reduced radiolucency at one year. J Bone Joint Surg Br [Internet]. 2009;91-B(2):185–189. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.91B2.21413
   Google Scholar
• Damm NB, Morlock MM, Bishop NE. Friction coefficient and effective interference at the implant-bone interface. J Biomech [Internet]. 2015;48:3517–3521. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.07.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campi S, Mellon SJ, Ridley D, et al. Optimal interference of the tibial component of the cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement. Bone Joint Res [Internet]. 2018;7(3):226–231. doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.73.BJR-2017-0193.R1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campi S, Kendrick BJL, Kaptein BL, et al. Five-year results of a randomised controlled trial comparing cemented and cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement using radiostereometric analysis. Knee [Internet]. 2021;28:383–390. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2020.09.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stempin R, Kaczmarek W, Stempin K, et al. Midterm results of cementless and cemented unicondylar knee arthroplasty with mobile meniscal bearing: a prospective cohort study. Open Orthop J [Internet]. 2017;11(1):1173–1178. doi: 10.2174/1874325001711011173
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Knifsund J, Reito A, Haapakoski J, et al. Short-term survival of cementless Oxford unicondylar knee arthroplasty based on the Finnish arthroplasty register. Knee [Internet]. 2019;26(3):768–773. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2019.03.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campi S, Pandit HG, Dodd CAF, et al. Cementless fixation in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc [Internet]. 2017;25:736–745. doi: 10.1007/s00167-016-4244-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohammad HR, Bullock GS, Kennedy JA, et al. Cementless unicompartmental knee replacement achieves better ten-year clinical outcomes than cemented: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc [Internet]. 2021;29:3229–3245. doi: 10.1007/s00167-020-06091-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohammad HR, Judge A, Murray DW. The effect of age on the relative outcomes of cemented and cementless mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, based on data from national databases. The Journal of Arthroplasty [Internet]. 2023;38(1):30–36.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2022.08.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang G, Jiao X, Li Q, et al. Hybrid Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty has lower residual cement extrusion than cemented arthroplasty in treating end-stage unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Sep 30];22(1):1–10. doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-04720-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoshikawa R, Hiranaka T, Okamoto K, et al. The medial eminence line for predicting tibial fracture risk after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Surg [Internet]. 2020;12:166–170. doi: 10.4055/cios19011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hiranaka T, Yoshikawa R, Yoshida K, et al. Tibial shape and size predicts the risk of tibial plateau fracture after cementless unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in Japanese patients. Bone Joint J [Internet]. 2020;102-B(7):861–867. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.102B7.BJJ-2019-1754.R1
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Li ZX, Tan AHC. An early periprosthetic fracture of a cementless oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: risk factors and mitigation strategies. J Orthop Case Rep [Internet]. 2021;11(4):65–69. doi: 10.13107/jocr.2021.v11.i04.2156
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Liddle AD, Pandit HG, Jenkins C, et al. Valgus subsidence of the tibial component in cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement. Bone Joint J [Internet]. 2014;96-B(3):345–349. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.96B3.33182
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kamenaga T, Hiranaka T, Nakanishi Y, et al. Valgus subsidence of the tibial component caused by tibial component malpositioning in cementless Oxford mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. The Journal Of Arthroplasty [Internet]. 2019;34(12):3054–3060. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.07.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Price AJ, Svard U. A second decade lifetable survival analysis of the oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res [Internet]. 2011;469:174–179. doi: 10.1007/s11999-010-1506-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lisowski LA, Meijer LI, Van Den Bekerom MPJ, et al. Ten- to 15-year results of the Oxford phase III mobile unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective study from a non-designer group. The Bone & Joint Journal [Internet]. 2016;98-B(10_Supple_B):98–B. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B10.BJJ-2016-0474.R1
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mohammad HR, Strickland L, Hamilton TW, et al. Long-term outcomes of over 8,000 medial Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knees—a systematic review. Acta Orthop [Internet]. 2018;89(1):101–107. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2017.1367577
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pandit H, Hamilton TW, Jenkins C, et al. The clinical outcome of minimally invasive phase 3 Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a 15-year follow-up of 1000 UKAs. Bone Joint J [Internet]. 2015;97-B(11):1493–1499. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.97B11.35634
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cao Z, Niu C, Gong C, et al. Comparison of fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthropl [Internet]. 2019;34(12):3114–3123.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.07.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang W, Wang J, Li H, et al. Fixed- versus mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Sci Rep [Internet]. 2020;10:19075. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-76124-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kannan A, Lewis PL, Dyer C, et al. Do fixed or mobile bearing implants have better survivorship in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty? A study from the Australian orthopaedic association national joint replacement registry. Clin Orthop Relat Res [Internet]. 2021;479:1548–1558. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001698
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Oost I, Koenraadt KLM, van Steenbergen LN, et al. Higher risk of revision for partial knee replacements in low absolute volume hospitals: data from 18,134 partial knee replacements in the Dutch arthroplasty register. Acta Orthop [Internet]. 2020;91(4):426–432. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2020.1752017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liddle AD, Pandit H, Judge A, et al. Optimal usage of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J [Internet]. 2015;97-B(11):1506–1511. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.97B11.35551
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gulati A, Chau R, Pandit HG, et al. The incidence of physiological radiolucency following Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement and its relationship to outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Br [Internet]. 2009;91(7):896–902. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.91B7.21914
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ro K-H, Heo J-W, Lee D-H. Bearing dislocation and progression of osteoarthritis after mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty vary between asian and western patients: a meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res [Internet]. 2018;476:946–960. doi: 10.1007/s11999.0000000000000205
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun X, Liu P, Lu F, et al. Bearing dislocation of mobile bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in East Asian countries: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res [Internet]. 2021;16:28. doi: 10.1186/s13018-020-02190-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bae J-H, Kim JG, Lee S-Y, et al. Epidemiology of bearing dislocations after mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: multicenter analysis of 67 bearing dislocations. J Arthroplasty [Internet]. 2020;35:265–271. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.08.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hiranaka T, Suda Y, Kamenaga T, et al. Bearing separation from the lateral wall of the tibial component is a risk of anterior dislocation of the mobile bearing in Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. The Journal of Arthroplasty [Internet]. 2022;37(5):942–947. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2022.01.020
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hiranaka T, Suda Y, Kamenaga T, et al. Bearings can dislocate with smaller femoral components and thicker bearings in Oxford™ medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research [Internet]. 2023;103598(8):103598. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2023.103598
   Google Scholar
• Kang S-W, Kim K-T, Hwang Y-S, et al. Is mobile-bearing medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty appropriate for asian patients with the risk of bearing dislocation? J Arthroplasty [Internet]. 2020;35:1222–1227. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.12.036
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pandit H, Spiegelberg B, Clavé A, et al. Aetiology of lateral progression of arthritis following Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement: a case–control study. Musculoskelet Surg [Internet]. 2016;100(2):97–102. doi: 10.1007/s12306-015-0394-8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kamenaga T, Hiranaka T, Hida Y, et al. Lateral osteoarthritis progression is associated with a postoperative residual tibiofemoral subluxation in Oxford UKA. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc [Internet]. 2021;30(9):3236–3243. doi: 10.1007/s00167-021-06729-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanaka T, Hiranaka T, Anjiki K, et al. MRI-determined preoperative lateral meniscus degeneration is not associated with adverse mid-term clinical results after mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee [Internet]. 2020;27(4):1279–1284. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2020.06.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hiranaka T, Furuhashi R, Takashiba K, et al. Agreement and accuracy of radiographic assessment using a decision aid for medial Oxford partial knee replacement: multicentre study. Knee Surg Relat Res [Internet]. 2022;34:13. doi: 10.1186/s43019-022-00140-8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kendrick BJL, Rout R, Bottomley NJ, et al. The implications of damage to the lateral femoral condyle on medial unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br [Internet]. 2010;92(3):374–379. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.92B3.23561
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pandit H, Mancuso F, Jenkins C, et al. Lateral unicompartmental knee replacement for the treatment of arthritis progression after medial unicompartmental replacement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc [Internet]. 2017;25:669–674. doi: 10.1007/s00167-016-4075-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohammad HR, Matharu GS, Judge A, et al. 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 [Internet]. 2020;91(1):76–81. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2019.1680924
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brumby SA, Carrington R, Zayontz S, et al. Tibial plateau stress fracture: A complication of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using 4 guide pinholes. J Arthroplasty [Internet]. 2003;18:809–812. doi: 10.1016/S0883-5403(03)00330-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seeger JB, Haas D, Jäger S, et al. Extended sagittal saw cut significantly reduces fracture load in cementless unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compared to cemented tibia plateaus: an experimental cadaver study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc [Internet]. 2012;20:1087–1091. doi: 10.1007/s00167-011-1698-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shelton TJ, Gill M, Athwal G, et al. Revision of a medial UKA to a kinematic aligned TKA: comparison of operative complexity, postoperative alignment, and outcome scores to a primary TKA. J Knee Surg [Internet]. 2021;34:406–414. doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1696734
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker PN, Petheram T, Avery PJ, et al. Revision for unexplained pain following unicompartmental and total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am [Internet]. 2012;94:e126. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.K.00791
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Badawy M, Fenstad AM, Bartz-Johannessen CA, et al. Hospital volume and the risk of revision in Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the Nordic countries -an observational study of 14,496 cases. BMC Musculoskelet Disord [Internet]. 2017;18:388. doi: 10.1186/s12891-017-1750-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanavalee A, Limtrakul A, Veerasethsiri P, et al. Area of skin numbness after total knee arthroplasty: does minimally invasive approach make any difference from standard approach? J Arthroplasty [Internet]. 2016;31:2499–2503. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.04.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faschingbauer M, Renner L, Boettner F. Allergy in total knee replacement. does it exist?: Review article. Hss J [Internet]. 2017;13(1):12–19. doi: 10.1007/s11420-016-9514-8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Walker T, Rutkowski L, Innmann M, et al. Unicondylar knee arthroplasty using cobalt-chromium implants in patients with self-reported cutaneous metal hypersensitivity. Bone Joint J [Internet]. 2019;101-B(2):227–232. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.101B2.BJJ-2018-0778.R1
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Atilla HA, Çevik HB, Akdoğan M, et al. Self-reported metal hypersensitivity in patients undergoing unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J Clin Orthop Trauma [Internet]. 2021;14:17–21. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2020.10.002
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schalock PC, Menné T, Johansen JD, et al. Hypersensitivity reactions to metallic implants – diagnostic algorithm and suggested patch test series for clinical use. Contact Dermatitis [Internet]. 2012;66(1):4–19. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.2011.01971.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Apostolopoulos AP, Balfousias T, Khan S, et al. Failure of a medial unicompartmental knee replacement due to metal allergy. J Long Term Eff Med Implants [Internet]. 2018;28:319–325. doi: 10.1615/JLongTermEffMedImplants.2019030060
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• D’Ambrosi R, Ursino N, Mariani I, et al. Similar clinical and radiographic outcomes after two different hypoallergenic medial unicompartmental knee in patients with metal allergy. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol [Internet]. 2023;33(4):1315–1328. doi: 10.1007/s00590-022-03295-y
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• D’Ambrosi R, Nuara A, Mariani I, et al. Titanium niobium nitride mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty results in good to excellent clinical and radiographic outcomes in metal allergy patients with medial knee osteoarthritis. The Journal of Arthroplasty [Internet]. 2021;36(1):140–147.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.07.028
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Ambrosi R, Loucas R, Loucas M, et al. No clinical or radiographic differences between cemented cobalt–chromium and titanium–niobium nitride mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. IJOO [Internet]. 2021;55(5):1195–1201. doi: 10.1007/s43465-021-00486-3
   Google Scholar
• D’Ambrosi R, Anghilieri FM, Corona K, et al. Similar rates of return to sports and BMI reduction regardless of age, gender and preoperative BMI as seen in matched cohort of hypoallergenic and standard Cobalt Chromium medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc [Internet]. 2022;30:890–898. doi: 10.1007/s00167-021-06467-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun X, Su Z. A meta-analysis of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revised to total knee arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res [Internet]. 2018;13:158. doi: 10.1186/s13018-018-0859-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• El-Galaly A, Kappel A, Nielsen PT, et al. Revision risk for total knee arthroplasty converted from medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: comparison with primary and revision arthroplasties, based on mid-term results from the Danish knee arthroplasty registry. J Bone Joint Surg Am [Internet]. 2019;101:1999–2006. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.18.01468
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lim JBT, Pang HN, Tay KJD, et al. Clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction following revision of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty are as good as a primary total knee arthroplasty. Knee [Internet]. 2019;26(4):847–852. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2019.04.016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leta TH, Lygre SHL, Skredderstuen A, et al. Outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty after aseptic revision to total knee arthroplasty: a comparative study of 768 TKAs and 578 UKAs revised to TKAs from the Norwegian arthroplasty register (1994 to 2011). J Bone Joint Surg Am [Internet]. 2016;98:431–440. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.O.00499
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayashi T, Hiranaka T, Fujishiro T, et al. Restricted kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty following failed oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Cureus [Internet]. 2023;15:e45104. doi: 10.7759/cureus.45104
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattei L, Pellegrino P, Calò M, et al. Patient specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: a state of the art. Ann Transl Med [Internet]. 2016;4(7):126. doi: 10.21037/atm.2016.03.33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krackow KA, Bayers-Thering M, Phillips MJ, et al. A new technique for determining proper mechanical axis alignment during total knee arthroplasty: progress toward computer-assisted TKA. Orthopedics [Internet]. 1999;22:698–702. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10418867
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bäthis H, Perlick L, Tingart M, et al. Alignment in total knee arthroplasty. A comparison of computer-assisted surgery with the conventional technique. J Bone Joint Surg Br [Internet]. 2004;86(5):682–687. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.86b5.14927
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mason JB, Fehring TK, Estok R, et al. Meta-analysis of alignment outcomes in computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty surgery. J Arthroplasty [Internet]. 2007;22:1097–1106. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2007.08.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderl W, Pauzenberger L, Kölblinger R, et al. Patient-specific instrumentation improved mechanical alignment, while early clinical outcome was comparable to conventional instrumentation in TKA. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc [Internet]. 2016;24:102–111. doi: 10.1007/s00167-014-3345-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanz-Ruiz P, Matas-Diez JA, Carbo-Laso E, et al. Patient-specific instrument can improve functional and radiographic results during learning curve for Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg [Internet]. 2019;32:180–185. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1636837
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flury A, Hasler J, Dimitriou D, et al. Midterm clinical and radiographic outcomes of 115 consecutive patient-specific unicompartmental knee arthroplasties. Knee [Internet]. 2019;26(4):889–896. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2019.05.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell SW, Anthony I, Jones B, et al. Improved accuracy of component positioning with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: data from a prospective, randomized controlled study. J Bone Joint Surg Am [Internet]. 2016;98:627–635. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.15.00664
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blyth MJG, Anthony I, Rowe P, et al. Robotic arm-assisted versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: exploratory secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint Res [Internet]. 2017;6(11):631–639. doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.611.BJR-2017-0060.R1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rauck RC, Blevins JL, Cross MB. Component placement accuracy in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is improved with robotic-assisted surgery: will it have an effect on outcomes? Hss J [Internet]. 2018;14(2):211–213. doi: 10.1007/s11420-017-9593-1
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Begum FA, Kayani B, Morgan SDJ, et al. Robotic technology: current concepts, operative techniques and emerging uses in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. EFORT Open Rev [Internet]. 2020;5(5):312–318. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190089
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu P, Lu F-F, Liu G-J, et al. Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a review. Arthroplasty [Internet]. 2021;3:15. doi: 10.1186/s42836-021-00071-x
   PubMedGoogle Scholar