Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Revision to TKA: Are Tibial Stems and Augments Associated With Improved Survivorship?

Peter L. Lewis, David C. Davidson, Stephen E. Graves, Richard N. De Steiger, William Donnelly, Alana Cuthbert

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background Some surgeons contend that unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) can easily be revised to a TKA when revision is called for, whereas others believe that this can be complex and technically demanding. There has been little research regarding the efficacy or rationale of using metal augmentation and tibial stem extensions when revising a UKA to a TKA. Question/purposes (1) Is the use of stem extensions for the tibial component associated with increased survival when revising a UKA to a TKA? (2) Is the addition of modular augments associated with increased survival compared with stem extensions alone? (3) Is TKA design (minimally stabilized versus posterior-stabilized) or (4) tibial fixation (cemented versus cementless) associated with differences in survivorship? Methods Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) were used to analyze implant survival after revision of a UKA to a TKA, comparing results in which tibial components were used with and without modular components. The groups analyzed wereTKAwithout a stemextension, those inwhich a tibial stem extension was used, and those in which a tibial stem extension was used together with an augment. There were 4438 revisions of UKAs to TKAs available for analysis.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)854-862
Number of pages9
JournalClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research
Volume476
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2018

Keywords

  • Journal Article

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this