Table 3 Recent studies comparing UKA and TKA
From: Better short-term function after unicompartmental compared to total knee arthroplasty
Author | Year | study | Study design | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Tu et al. [16] | 2020 | 121 UKA vs 35 TKA in theIsolated lateral OA, mean FU5.3 years | retrospective,monocenter | better postoperative Oxford Knee Score, Hospital for Special Knee Surgery score, range of motion, shorter length of hospitalization, and higher satisfaction rate in UKA |
Liebensteineret al. [17] | 2020 | 112 UKA vs. 330 TKA in medialOA | retrospective,multicenter (registrydata) | no significant differences between WOMAC and early or late ROM |
Blevins et al.[18] | 2020 | 150 UKA vs 150 TKA | retrospective,monocenter, matched-pair | UKA patients had less postoperative pain, earlier return to work, andhigher KSS |
Hauer et al.[19] | 2020 | 35 UKA vs 35 TKA, mean FU2.3 years | retrospective,monocenter, matched-pair | UKA better regarding Tegner Activity Scale and ROM, better results insubscales of Short-Form 36 |
Harbourneet al. [20] | 2019 | 420 UKA vs 575 TKA, FU 12 months | prospective,longitudinal cohortstudy, multicenter | UKA patients more likely to return to desired activity |
Lum et al.[21] | 2018 | 650 UKA vs 1300 TKA inseverely obese patients, meanFU 2.3 years | retrospective | UKA with equal survivorship with substantially fewer reoperations,reduced deep infection, and less perioperative complications, severelyobese patients had improved Knee function scores |
Miglioriniet al. [22] | 2018 | 3254 UKA vs 10.649 TKA | Meta-analysis | UKA with better clinical and functional outcome, yet reducedsurvivorship |
Goh et al.[23] | 2018 | 160 UKA vs 160 TKA, patientsyounger than 55, mean FU 7 years | prospective,multicenter, matched-pair | no significant difference in Knee Society Score, Oxford Knee Score,and Short-Form 36; greater ROM in short-term (2 years) |
Lombardiet al. [24] | 2018 | UKA vs TKA revision, n = 193,mean postoperative interval4.8 years | retrospective,monocenter | Re-revision rates after UKA revision equal to primary TKA and lowercompared to Re-revision TKA |
Siman et al.[25] | 2017 | 120 UKA vs 188 TKA, patientsolder than 75 in medial OA | retrospective,monocenter | UKA with shorter operative time and hospital stay, lowerintraoperative blood loss / transfusions, greater postoperative range ofmotion, higher level of activity at time of discharge, no difference inpostoperative KSS, or 5-year survivorship |
Kulshresthaet al. [8] | 2017 | 40 UKA vs 40 TKA, comparisonon early medial OA, FU 2 years | prospective,randomized,monocenter | UKA with similar improvement in patient-reported outcomes, function,and performance; UKA with shorter hospital stay and fewercomplications |
van der Listet al. [26] | 2017 | 166 UKA vs 63 TKA,comparison in medial OA,mean FU 3 years | retrospective,monocenter | better functional outcome in UKA, especially in younger patients andfemales |
Lum et al.[27] | 2016 | 201 UKA vs. 189 TKA, mean FU5.5 years | retrospective,monocenter | UKA with higher postoperative Knee Function Score, no differences inROM, revision rates without statistical differences |
Shankar et al.[28] | 2016 | 64 UKA vs 64 TKA, cost analysis | retrospective,monocenter, matched-pair | UKA with shorter operative time, hospital stay, lower transfusion rates,earlier discharge, overall lower direct and total cost |
van der Listet al. [29] | 2016 | 48 UKA vs 34 TKA, comparisonin lateral OA, mean FU 2.8 years | retrospective,monocenter | UKA with superior short-term functional outcome (WOMAC), especiallyin young patients and females |
Fabre-Aubrespyet al. [30] | 2016 | 101 UKA vs 101 TKA, patientsolder than 75, FU 5 years | retrospective,monocenter, matched-pair | UKA with better KSS, KOOS and Forgotten Knee score, similar 16 yrsurvivorship |
Schwab et al.[31] | 2015 | 105 UKA vs 105 TKA | retrospective,monocenter, matched-pair | lower blood loss and transfusion rates in UKA |