Tripathy SK, Pradhan SS, Khan S, Patel H. Analysis of causes for revision in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. World J Clin Cases 2024; 12(25): 5642-5645 [PMID: 39247730 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v12.i25.5642]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Sujit Kumar Tripathy, MCh, MNAMS, MS, Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, SIjua, Patrapada, Bhubaneswar 751019, Odisha, India. sujitortho@yahoo.co.in
Research Domain of This Article
Orthopedics
Article-Type of This Article
Editorial
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Clin Cases. Sep 6, 2024; 12(25): 5642-5645 Published online Sep 6, 2024. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v12.i25.5642
Analysis of causes for revision in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty
Sujit Kumar Tripathy, Siddharth Satyakam Pradhan, Shahnawaz Khan, Hursch Patel
Sujit Kumar Tripathy, Siddharth Satyakam Pradhan, Department of Orthopaedics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar 751019, Odisha, India
Shahnawaz Khan, Department of Orthopedics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar 751019, India
Hursch Patel, Department of Medicine, Kansas City University of Medicine and Biosciences, Kansas City, MO 64106, United States
Author contributions: Tripathy SK, Pradhan SS, and Khan S evaluated the manuscript and analyzed the reasons for failure in UKA; Patel H and Khan S reviewed the literature; Pradhan SS and Tripathy SK prepared the initial manuscript; Tripathy SK, Khan S, and Patel H provided intellectual content; all authors read the manuscript and approved it for publication.
Conflict-of-interest statement: There are no conflict-of-interest disclosures by any authors.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: https://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: Sujit Kumar Tripathy, MCh, MNAMS, MS, Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, SIjua, Patrapada, Bhubaneswar 751019, Odisha, India. sujitortho@yahoo.co.in
Received: March 11, 2024 Revised: April 28, 2024 Accepted: May 28, 2024 Published online: September 6, 2024 Processing time: 127 Days and 15.2 Hours
Abstract
The study by Zhao et al identifies the factors leading to the failure of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) in their patients. These factors include substandard suturing of the wound, the presence of osteophytes and intra-articular loose bodies causing impingement, premature loosening of the tibial component, choosing unsuitable patients for the procedure, dislocation of the movable insert, and damage to the anterior cruciate ligament and medial collateral ligament. The findings suggest that employing the correct surgical techniques and indications is essential for successful outcomes in the UKA.
Core Tip: The study by Zhao et al investigates revision causes after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), noting frequent failures due to surgical technique issues. UKA, used for single-compartment knee osteoarthritis, offers benefits like bone preservation and quicker recovery, with superior outcomes but a higher revision rate than TKA. Registry data show surgeon experience and procedural volume significantly affect outcomes, with optimal results when UKA comprises at least 20% of knee arthroplasties. Common revision causes include component dislocation, loosening, and poor candidate selection. The study stresses proper technique, patient selection, and follow-up for UKA success.
