Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

There is currently a resurgence of interest in unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR), primarily because of the minimally invasive approach but also because there are now some reports of UKR achieving similar long-term survival rates to total knee replacement (TKR). These improved survival rates are the result of more precise indications, improved implant design, and better surgical techniques. To achieve good 10-year survival with fixed bearing devices, precise indications are necessary; approximately 1 in 10 patients requiring knee replacement are appropriate. The indications are not as narrow when using a mobile bearing device such as the Oxford knee, because of improved wear resistance and instrumentation; approximately one in four patients are appropriate. However, the mobile bearing device is technically more demanding to implant than most fixed bearing devices. There is a vogue to consider UKR to be a preknee replacement. As a result, many new prosthetic designs are being implanted with a minimally invasive approach often with poor instrumentation in a very wide range of patients. It is our belief that those patients who satisfy the accepted indications should be treated with a proven design using sophisticated instrumentation. It remains debatable whether those patients who do not satisfy these indications should have a UKR as a preknee replacement or should have a TKR. © 2003 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

Original publication

DOI

10.1097/00001433-200302000-00010

Type

Journal article

Journal

Current Opinion in Orthopaedics

Publication Date

01/02/2003

Volume

14

Pages

41 - 44