Survivorship and patient satisfaction of a fixed bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty incorporating an all-polyethylene tibial component


      We report the survivorship of 91 fixed bearing unicompartmental arthroplasties with all-polyethylene tibial components (Preservation DePuy UK), which were used for medial compartment osteoarthritis in 79 patients between 2004 and 2007. The satisfaction level of patients who had not undergone revision of the implant was also recorded. For comparison, we reviewed 49 mobile bearing unicompartmental arthroplasties (Oxford UKA Biomet UK Ltd), which had been used in 44 patients between 1998 and 2007. Mean length of follow-up of patients with the fixed bearing implant was 44.7 months (range 24–74 months) and for the mobile bearing replacement, the mean follow-up was 67.6 months (24–119). In the fixed bearing design, at maximum follow-up period of 74 months, eight implants (8.8%) had been revised (or were listed for revision) to Total Knee Replacement and in the mobile bearing design over the maximum follow-up period of 119 months there had been only one revision (2.0%). Patients who had not undergone revision were asked if they were satisfied with their knee following the unicompartmental arthroplasty. In the fixed bearing design, 83.5% said that they were satisfied with the outcome of the operation compared to 93.9% of the patients receiving the mobile bearing design. We conclude that there is a higher incidence of revision of this fixed bearing design using an all-polyethylene tibial component compared to the mobile bearing design. We found that those patients who had not required revision had a lower rate of satisfaction with the fixed bearing compared to the mobile bearing design.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to The Knee
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Marmor L.
        Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Ten- to 13-year follow-up study.
        Clin Orthop. 1988; 226: 14-20
        • Berger R.A.
        • Meneghini R.M.
        • Jacobs J.J.
        • Sheinkop M.B.
        • Della Valle C.J.
        • Rosenberg A.G.
        • Galante J.O.
        Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum of ten years of follow-up.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87: 999-1006
        • Murray D.W.
        • Goodfellow J.W.
        • O'Connor J.J.
        The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a ten-year survival study.
        J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 1998; 80: 983-989
        • Goodfellow J.W.
        • Tibrewal S.B.
        • Sherman K.P.
        • O'Connor J.J.
        Unicompartmental Oxford meniscal knee arthroplasty.
        J Arthroplasty. 1987; 2: 1-9
        • Goodfellow J.W.
        • Kershaw C.J.
        • Benson MK D'.A.
        • O'Connor J.J.
        The Oxford knee for unicompartmental osteoarthritis.
        J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 1988; 70: 692-701
        • Ashraf T.
        • Newman J.H.
        • Desai V.V.
        • Beard D.
        • Nevelos J.E.
        Polyethylene wear in a non-congruous unicompartmental knee replacement: a retrieval analysis.
        Knee. Jun 2004; 11: 177-181
        • Lustig S.
        • Paillot J.L.
        • Servien E.
        • Henry J.
        • Ait Si Selmi T.
        • Neyret P.
        Cemented all polyethylene tibial insert unicompartimental knee arthroplasty: a long-term follow-up study.
        Rev Chir Orthop Traumatol. Feb 2009; 95: 12-21
        • Squire M.W.
        • Callaghan J.J.
        • Goetz D.D.
        • Sullivan P.M.
        Unicompartmental knee replacement. A minimum 15 year follow-up study.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. Oct 1999; 367: 61-72
        • Tabor Jr., O.B.
        • Tabor O.B.
        Unicompartmental arthroplasty: a long-term follow-up study.
        J Arthroplasty. Jun 1998; 13: 373-379
        • Mariani E.M.
        • Bourne M.H.
        • Jackson R.T.
        • Jackson S.T.
        • Jones P.
        Early failure of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
        J Arthroplasty. 2007; 22: 81-84
        • Hamilton W.G.
        • Collier M.B.
        • Tarabee E.
        • McAuley J.P.
        • Engh Jr., C.A.
        • Engh G.A.
        Incidence and reasons for reoperation after minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
        J Arthroplasty. Sep 2006; 21: 98-107
        • Pandit H.
        • Jenkins C.
        • Gill H.S.
        • Barker K.
        • Dodd C.A.
        • Murray D.W.
        Minimally invasive Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee replacement: results of 1000 cases.
        J Bone Joint Surg [Br.]. Feb 2011; 93: 198-204
        • Gioe T.J.
        • Maheshwari A.V.
        The all-polyethylene tibial component in primary total knee arthroplasty.
        J Bone Joint Surg [Am.]. Feb 2010; 92: 478-487
        • Bartel D.L.
        • Burstein A.H.
        • Santavicca E.A.
        • Insall J.N.
        Performance of the tibial component in total knee replacement.
        J Bone Joint Surg [Am.]. 1982; 64: 1026-1033