Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revised to total knee arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis of matched studies.

BACKGROUND: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) offers a less invasive alternative to total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but is accompanied by a high revision risk. The aim of our study was to perform a meta-analysis comparing outcomes of UKA revised to TKA versus primary TKA, to assess if UKA is an effective treatment option, despite its potential need for revision.

METHODS: Studies comparing matched cohorts of patients with UKA revised to TKA versus primary TKA were identified via the PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, and Scopus databases. The following outcome measures were compared between treatment modalities: postoperative reoperation or revision, total complications, range of motion, patient-reported outcome measures, and length of stay.

RESULTS: Ten studies were included with 1,070 patients: 410 UKA to TKA and 660 primary TKA. At an average follow-up of 5.6 years in the UKA to TKA cohort and 5.7 years in the primary TKA cohort, there were no significant difference in risk of revision (p = 0.81), total complications (p = 0.54), range of motion (p = 0.09), or length of stay (p = 0.31). Both objective and functional Knee Society Score were significantly higher in patients with primary TKA (p < 0.01). However, there was no difference in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) or pain scores (p = 0.13 and p = 0.21, respectively).

CONCLUSION: UKA revised to TKA produced comparable clinical and patient-reported outcomes to a primary TKA. UKA may be an effective treatment option in unicompartmental arthritis that would allow for improved functionality and satisfaction without the concern of outcomes deteriorating in patients where a revision becomes necessary.