Skip to main content
Log in

St Georg Sled medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: survivorship analysis and function at 20 years follow up

  • KNEE
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

The peri-operative and short-term benefits of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) are well supported in the literature. However, there remains concern regarding the higher revision rate when compared with total knee replacement. This manuscript reports the functional outcome and survivorship of a large series of fixed bearing, medial unicompartmental replacements (St Georg Sled), with a minimum of 20 years follow-up.

Methods

Between 1974 and 1994, 399 patients (496 knees) underwent a medial fixed-bearing UKA. Prospective data were collected pre-operatively and at regular intervals post-operatively using the Bristol Knee Score (BKS), Oxford Knee (OKS) and Western Ontario MacMaster (WOMAC) scores. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was used to determine survivorship, with revision or need for revision as end point, and differences assessed using Mantel–Cox log rank test.

Results

Functional knee scores improved post-operatively, but demonstrated a slight decline from 10 years of follow-up onwards. Survivorship is estimated as 86% at 10 years, 80% at 15 years, and 78% at 20 years. Sixty knees were revised, with progression of disease in another compartment the commonest reason. Eighty eight percent were revised using a primary prosthesis. For patients over the age of 65 years at the time of index procedure, 93% died with a functioning prosthesis in situ.

Conclusion

Medial UKA demonstrates good long-term function and survivorship, and represents an excellent surgical option for patients aged over 65 years of age, where few patients will require a revision procedure.

Level of evidence

IV.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 17th Annual Report, National Joint Registry, UK. 2020; njrreports.org.uk. Accessed 5 Dec 2020

  2. 18 Year Report, The New Zealand Joint Registry. 2017; https://nzoa.org.nz/system/files/DH7827_NZJR_2017_Report_v4_26Oct17.pdf. Accessed 5 Dec 2020

  3. 2017 Annual Report, Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register. 2017. http://www.myknee.se/pdf/SVK_2017_Eng_1.0.pdf. Accessed 5 Dec 2020

  4. Ackroyd CE, Whitehouse SL, Newman JH, Joslin CC (2002) A comparative study of the medial St Georg sled and kinematic total knee arthroplasties. Ten-year survivorship. J Bone Jt Surg Br 84:667–672

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Alnachoukati OK, Barrington JW, Berend KR, Kolczun MC, Emerson RH, Lombardi AV Jr et al (2018) Eight hundred twenty-five medial mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasties: the first 10-year US multi-center survival analysis. J Arthroplasty 33:677–683

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ansari S, Newman JH, Ackroyd CE (1997) St. Georg sledge for medial compartment knee replacement. 461 arthroplasties followed for 4 (1–17) years. Acta Orthop Scand 68:430–434

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Argenson JN, Blanc G, Aubaniac JM, Parratte S (2013) Modern unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cement: a concise follow-up, at a mean of twenty years, of a previous report. J Bone Jt Surg Am 95:905–909

    Google Scholar 

  8. Argenson JN, Chevrol-Benkeddache Y, Aubaniac JM (2002) Modern unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cement: a three to ten-year follow-up study. J Bone Jt Surg Am 84:2235–2239

    Google Scholar 

  9. Association AO (2020) 2020 Annual Report, National Joint Replacement Registry. https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/annual-reports-2018. Accessed 5 Dec 2020

  10. Badawy M, Espehaug B, Indrekvam K, Havelin LI, Furnes O (2014) Higher revision risk for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in low-volume hospitals. Acta Orthop 85:342–347

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Baker P, Jameson S, Critchley R, Reed M, Gregg P, Deehan D (2013) Center and surgeon volume influence the revision rate following unicondylar knee replacement: an analysis of 23,400 medial cemented unicondylar knee replacements. J Bone Jt Surg Am 95:702–709

    Google Scholar 

  12. Baker PN, Petheram T, Avery PJ, Gregg PJ, Deehan DJ (2012) Revision for unexplained pain following unicompartmental and total knee replacement. J Bone Jt Surg Am 94:e126

    Google Scholar 

  13. Beard DJ, Davies LJ, Cook JA, MacLennan G, Price A, Kent S et al (2019) The clinical and cost-effectiveness of total versus partial knee replacement in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis (TOPKAT): 5-year outcomes of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 394:746–756

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Bottomley N, Jones LD, Rout R, Alvand A, Rombach I, Evans T et al (2016) A survival analysis of 1084 knees of the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a comparison between consultant and trainee surgeons. Bone Jt J 98-B:22–27

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Bremner-Smith AT, Ewings P, Weale AE (2004) Knee scores in a “normal” elderly population. Knee 11:279–282

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bruni D, Gagliardi M, Akkawi I, Raspugli GF, Bignozzi S, Marko T et al (2016) Good survivorship of all-polyethylene tibial component UKA at long-term follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24:182–187

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Burn E, Liddle AD, Hamilton TW, Judge A, Pandit HG, Murray DW et al (2018) Cost-effectiveness of unicompartmental compared with total knee replacement: a population-based study using data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. BMJ Open 8:e020977

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Chatellard R, Sauleau V, Colmar M, Robert H, Raynaud G, Brilhault J et al (2013) Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: does tibial component position influence clinical outcomes and arthroplasty survival? Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 99:S219-225

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Confalonieri N, Manzotti A, Pullen C (2004) Comparison of a mobile with a fixed tibial bearing unicompartimental knee prosthesis: a prospective randomized trial using a dedicated outcome score. Knee 11:357–362

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Corpe RS, Engh GA (1990) A quantitative assessment of degenerative changes acceptable in the unoperated compartments of knees undergoing unicompartmental replacement. Orthopedics 13:319–323

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Emerson RH, Alnachoukati O, Barrington J, Ennin K (2016) The results of Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the United States: a mean ten-year survival analysis. Bone Jt J 98-B:34–40

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Emerson RH Jr, Hansborough T, Reitman RD, Rosenfeldt W, Higgins LL (2002) Comparison of a mobile with a fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee implant. Clin Orthop Relat Res. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200211000-0001162-70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Evans JT, Walker RW, Evans JP, Blom AW, Sayers A, Whitehouse MR (2019) How long does a knee replacement last? A systematic review and meta-analysis of case series and national registry reports with more than 15 years of follow-up. Lancet 393:655–663

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Foran JR, Brown NM, Della Valle CJ, Berger RA, Galante JO (2013) Long-term survivorship and failure modes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:102–108

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Forster-Horvath C, Artz N, Hassaballa MA, Robinson JR, Porteous AJ, Murray JR et al (2016) Survivorship and clinical outcome of the minimally invasive Uniglide medial fixed bearing, all-polyethylene tibia, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a mean follow-up of 7.3years. Knee 23:981–986

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gleeson RE, Evans R, Ackroyd CE, Webb J, Newman JH (2004) Fixed or mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement? A comparative cohort study. Knee 11:379–384

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ, Murray DW (2010) A critique of revision rate as an outcome measure: re-interpretation of knee joint registry data. J Bone Jt Surg Br 92:1628–1631

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Hansen EN, Ong KL, Lau E, Kurtz SM, Lonner JH (2019) Unicondylar knee arthroplasty has fewer complications but higher revision rates than total knee arthroplasty in a study of large united states databases. J Arthroplasty. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.04.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kim KT, Lee S, Lee JS, Kang MS, Koo KH (2018) Long-term clinical results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients younger than 60 years of age: minimum 10-year follow-up. Knee Surg Relat Res 30:28–33

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Kim MS, Koh IJ, Choi YJ, Lee JY, In Y (2017) Differences in patient-reported outcomes between unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasties: a propensity score-matched analysis. J Arthroplasty 32:1453–1459

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kleeblad LJ, van der List JP, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD (2018) Larger range of motion and increased return to activity, but higher revision rates following unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in patients under 65: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26:1811–1822

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Li MG, Yao F, Joss B, Ioppolo J, Nivbrant B, Wood D (2006) Mobile vs. fixed bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a randomized study on short term clinical outcomes and knee kinematics. Knee 13:365–370

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Liddle AD, Judge A, Pandit H, Murray DW (2014) Adverse outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee replacement in 101,330 matched patients: a study of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet 384:1437–1445

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Liddle AD, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray DW (2015) Patient-reported outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study of 14,076 matched patients from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Bone Jt J 97-B:793–801

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Manzotti A, Cerveri P, Pullen C, Confalonieri N (2014) A flat all-polyethylene tibial component in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a long-term study. Knee 21(Suppl 1):S20-25

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Mercier N, Wimsey S, Saragaglia D (2010) Long-term clinical results of the Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 34:1137–1143

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Murray DW, Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ (1998) The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a ten-year survival study. J Bone Jt Surg Br 80:983–989

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Neufeld ME, Albers A, Greidanus NV, Garbuz DS, Masri BA (2018) A comparison of mobile and fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum 10-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 33:1713–1718

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Newman JH, Ackroyd CE, Shah NA (1998) Unicompartmental or total knee replacement? Five-year results of a prospective, randomised trial of 102 osteoarthritic knees with unicompartmental arthritis. J Bone Jt Surg Br 80:862–865

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. O’Rourke MR, Gardner JJ, Callaghan JJ, Liu SS, Goetz DD, Vittetoe DA et al (2005) The John Insall Award: unicompartmental knee replacement: a minimum twenty-one-year followup, end-result study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 440:27–37

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Pandit H, Jenkins C, Gill HS, Barker K, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2011) Minimally invasive Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee replacement: results of 1000 cases. J Bone Jt Surg Br 93:198–204

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Parratte S, Pauly V, Aubaniac JM, Argenson JN (2012) No long-term difference between fixed and mobile medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:61–68

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Peersman G, Jak W, Vandenlangenbergh T, Jans C, Cartier P, Fennema P (2014) Cost-effectiveness of unicondylar versus total knee arthroplasty: a Markov model analysis. Knee 21(Suppl 1):S37-42

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Pollock M, Somerville L, Firth A, Lanting B (2016) Outpatient total hip arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty, and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature. JBJS Rev 4:S433

    Google Scholar 

  45. Price AJ, Dodd CA, Svard UG, Murray DW (2005) Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients younger and older than 60 years of age. J Bone Jt Surg Br 87:1488–1492

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Price AJ, Svard U (2011) A second decade lifetable survival analysis of the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:174–179

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Robertsson O, Knutson K, Lewold S, Lidgren L (2001) The routine of surgical management reduces failure after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg Br 83:45–49

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Schlueter-Brust K, Kugland K, Stein G, Henckel J, Christ H, Eysel P et al (2014) Ten year survivorship after cemented and uncemented medial Uniglide(R) unicompartmental knee arthroplasties. Knee 21:964–970

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Sebilo A, Casin C, Lebel B, Rouvillain JL, Chapuis S, Bonnevialle P et al (2013) Clinical and technical factors influencing outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Retrospective multicentre study of 944 knees. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 99:S227-234

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Smith TO, Hing CB, Davies L, Donell ST (2009) Fixed versus mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement: a meta-analysis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 95:599–605

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Smith WB 2nd, Steinberg J, Scholtes S, McNamara IR (2017) Medial compartment knee osteoarthritis: age-stratified cost-effectiveness of total knee arthroplasty, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, and high tibial osteotomy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25:924–933

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Steele RG, Hutabarat S, Evans RL, Ackroyd CE, Newman JH (2006) Survivorship of the St Georg Sled medial unicompartmental knee replacement beyond ten years. J Bone Jt Surg Br 88:1164–1168

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Svard UC, Price AJ (2001) Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. A survival analysis of an independent series. J Bone Jt Surg Br 83:191–194

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Tabor OB Jr, Tabor OB, Bernard M, Wan JY (2005) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: long-term success in middle-age and obese patients. J Surg Orthop Adv 14:59–63

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. van der List JP, McDonald LS, Pearle AD (2015) Systematic review of medial versus lateral survivorship in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee 22:454–460

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Vorlat P, Putzeys G, Cottenie D, Van Isacker T, Pouliart N, Handelberg F et al (2006) The Oxford unicompartmental knee prosthesis: an independent 10-year survival analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 14:40–45

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Walker T, Hetto P, Bruckner T, Gotterbarm T, Merle C, Panzram B et al (2019) Minimally invasive Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty ensures excellent functional outcome and high survivorship in the long term. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27:1658–1664

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Willis-Owen CA, Brust K, Alsop H, Miraldo M, Cobb JP (2009) Unicondylar knee arthroplasty in the UK National Health Service: an analysis of candidacy, outcome and cost efficacy. Knee 16:473–478

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Winnock de Grave P, Barbier J, Luyckx T, Ryckaert A, Gunst P, Van den Daelen L (2018) Outcomes of a fixed-bearing, medial, cemented unicondylar knee arthroplasty design: survival analysis and functional score of 460 cases. J Arthroplasty 33:2792–2799

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Yang S, Hadlow S (2003) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is it durable? N Z Med J 116:U627

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Yoshida K, Tada M, Yoshida H, Takei S, Fukuoka S, Nakamura H (2013) Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in Japan–clinical results in greater than one thousand cases over ten years. J Arthroplasty 28:168–171

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding to allow long term follow up of the cohort was funded by Aquilant Orthopaedics, UK. Aquilant Orthopaedics had no involvement with the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James R. A. Smith.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors certify that they have no affiliations with, or involvement in, any organisation or entity with any financial interest, or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Ethical approval

The data collection and database used in the study was approved by the regional ethics committee (Southwest EC: 09/H0206/72).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Porteous, A.J., Smith, J.R.A., Bray, R. et al. St Georg Sled medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: survivorship analysis and function at 20 years follow up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 30, 800–808 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06454-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06454-6

Keywords

Navigation