To assess how implant alignment affects unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) outcome, we compared tibial component alignment of well-functioning UKAs against 2 groups of failed UKAs, revised for progression of lateral compartment arthritis ("Progression") and aseptic loosening ("Loosening").We identified 37 revisions for Progression and 61 revisions for Loosening from our prospective institutional database of 3351 medial fixed-bearing UKAs performed since 2000. Revision cohorts were matched on age, gender, body mass index, and postoperative range of motion with "Successful" unrevised UKAs with minimum 10-year follow-up and Knee Society Score ≥70. Tibial component coronal (TCA) and sagittal (TSA) plane alignment was measured on postoperative radiographs. Limb alignment was quantified by hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle on long-leg radiographs. In addition to directly comparing groups, a multivariate logistic regression examined how limb and component alignments were associated with UKA revision.In the Progression group, component alignment was similar to the matched successes (TCA 3.6° ± 3.5° varus vs 5.1° ± 3.5° varus, P = .07; TSA 8.4° ± 4.4° vs 8.8° ± 3.6°, P = .67), whereas HKA angle was significantly more valgus (0.3° ± 3.6° valgus vs 4.4° ± 2.6° varus, P.001). Loosening group component alignment was also similar to the matched successes (TCA 6.1° ± 3.7° varus vs 5.9° ± 3.1° varus, P = .72; TSA 8.4° ± 4.6° vs 8.1° ± 3.9°, P = .68), and HKA was significantly more varus (6.1° ± 3.1° varus vs 4.0° ± 2.7° varus, P.001). Using a multivariate logistic regression, HKA angle was the most significant factor associated with revision (P.001).In this population of revised UKAs and long-term successes, limb alignment was a more important determinant of outcome than tibial component alignment.Level III case-control study.
Full Text via ClinicalKey