Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tibiofemoral Partial Knee Arthroplasty Implant Designs

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Partial Knee Arthroplasty

  • 937 Accesses

Abstract

Implant designs in tibiofemoral partial knee/unicompartmental replacement divide primarily into the philosophies of fixed vs. mobile bearing, with the latter being more prevalent in the unicompartmental market than in the total knee replacement market. Other points of differentiation include whether the tibial component is all-polyethylene or metal-backed and whether the metal components are cemented or cementless. Variations in results between individual manufacturer designs/brands make broad conclusions about sub-types challenging. Published series show little difference between fixed and mobile-bearing designs, while registries suggest that the best-performing fixed-bearing designs have the best 10-year survivorship. Reports on all-polyethylene vs. metal-backed designs, while broadly similar, do slightly favor metal-backed designs in the long term. There appears to be little difference in outcome between cemented and uncemented designs, although incidence of radiolucencies is lower in the latter group. New bearing surface materials and polyethylene may improve long-term survivorship. Results of unicompartmental replacements nonetheless are strongly influenced by factors beyond implant design, such as surgical expertise, surgeon volume, and revision thresholds.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Newman J, Pydisetty RV, Ackroyd C. Unicompartmental or total knee replacement: the 15-year results of a prospective randomised controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91(1):52–7. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.91B1.20899. 91-B/1/52 [pii].

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. van der List JP, Kleeblad LJ, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD. Mid-term outcomes of metal-backed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty show superiority to all-polyethylene unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty. HSS J. 2017;13(3):232–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-017-9557-5. 9557 [pii].

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. American Joint Replacement Registry. Fourth annual report on hip and knee arthroplasty data. Rosemont; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. 2016 Annual Report. Adelaide; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  5. National Joint Registry for England W, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. 14th Annual Report. Hemel Hempstead; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Murray DW, Liddle AD, Judge A, Pandit H. Bias and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2017;99-B(1):12–5. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.99B1.BJJ-2016-0515.R1. 99-B/1/12 [pii].

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Psychoyios V, Crawford RW, O'Connor JJ, Murray DW. Wear of congruent meniscal bearings in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a retrieval study of 16 specimens. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80(6):976–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Smith TO, Hing CB, Davies L, Donell ST. Fixed versus mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement: a meta-analysis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2009;95(8):599–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2009.10.006. S1877-0568(09)00173-X [pii].

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Li MG, Yao F, Joss B, Ioppolo J, Nivbrant B, Wood D. Mobile vs. fixed bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a randomized study on short term clinical outcomes and knee kinematics. Knee. 2006;13(5):365–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2006.05.003. S0968-0160(06)00082-2 [pii].

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Emerson RH Jr, Hansborough T, Reitman RD, Rosenfeldt W, Higgins LL. Comparison of a mobile with a fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee implant. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;404:62–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gleeson RE, Evans R, Ackroyd CE, Webb J, Newman JH. Fixed or mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement? A comparative cohort study. Knee. 2004;11(5):379–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2004.06.006. S0968-0160(04)00132-2 [pii].

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Peersman G, Stuyts B, Vandenlangenbergh T, Cartier P, Fennema P. Fixed- versus mobile-bearing UKA: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(11):3296–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3131-1. 10.1007/s00167-014-3131-1 [pii]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ko YB, Gujarathi MR, Oh KJ. Outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of comparative studies between fixed and mobile bearings focusing on complications. Knee Surg Relat Res. 2015;27(3):141–8. https://doi.org/10.5792/ksrr.2015.27.3.141.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Varadarajan KM, Oral E, Muratoglu OK, Freiberg AA. Why all tibial polyethylene bearings are not the same. Tech Orthop. 2018;33(1):17–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Burton A, Williams S, Brockett CL, Fisher J. In vitro comparison of fixed- and mobile meniscal-bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasties: effect of design, kinematics, and condylar liftoff. J Arthroplast. 2012;27(8):1452–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2012.02.011. S0883-5403(12)00121-0 [pii].

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kretzer JP, Jakubowitz E, Reinders J, Lietz E, Moradi B, Hofmann K, et al. Wear analysis of unicondylar mobile bearing and fixed bearing knee systems: a knee simulator study. Acta Biomater. 2011;7(2):710–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2010.09.031. S1742-7061(10)00441-1 [pii].

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Brockett CL, Jennings LM, Fisher J. The wear of fixed and mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacements. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2011;225(5):511–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041303310393824.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Becker R, Mauer C, Starke C, Brosz M, Zantop T, Lohmann CH, et al. Anteroposterior and rotational stability in fixed and mobile bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a cadaveric study using the robotic force sensor system. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21(11):2427–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-2157-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pandit H, Jenkins C, Beard DJ, Price AJ, Gill HS, Dodd CA, et al. Mobile bearing dislocation in lateral unicompartmental knee replacement. Knee. 2010;17(6):392–7.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2009.10.007. S0968-0160(09)00208-7 [pii].

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Simpson DJ, Kendrick BK, O’Connor JJ, Dodd C, Murray DW. Lateral mobile bearings in partial knee replacement: flat or domed? 56th Annual Meeting of the Orthopaedic Research Society; New Orleans; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Streit MR, Walker T, Bruckner T, Merle C, Kretzer JP, Clarius M, et al. Mobile-bearing lateral unicompartmental knee replacement with the Oxford domed tibial component: an independent series. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94(10):1356–61. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.94B10.29119. 94-B/10/1356 [pii].

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Newman SDS, Altuntas A, Alsop H, Cobb JP. Up to 10 year follow-up of the Oxford domed lateral partial knee replacement from an independent Centre. Knee. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2017.05.001. S0968-0160(17)30103-5 [pii].

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Saenz CL, McGrath MS, Marker DR, Seyler TM, Mont MA, Bonutti PM. Early failure of a unicompartmental knee arthroplasty design with an all-polyethylene tibial component. Knee. 2010;17(1):53–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2009.05.007. S0968-0160(09)00106-9 [pii].

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Scott CE, Eaton MJ, Nutton RW, Wade FA, Evans SL, Pankaj P. Metal-backed versus all-polyethylene unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: proximal tibial strain in an experimentally validated finite element model. Bone Joint Res. 2017;6(1):22–30. https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.61.BJR-2016-0142.R1. 6/1/22 [pii].

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Walker PS, Parakh DS, Chaudhary ME, Wei CS. Comparison of interface stresses and strains for onlay and inlay unicompartmental tibial components. J Knee Surg. 2011;24(2):109–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bray RL, White P, Howells N, Robinson JR, Porteous AJ, Murray JR. Minimum 20-year survivorship of the St Georg Sled medial unicompartmental knee replacement. BASK Annual Spring Meeting 2017; Southport, England; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lustig S, Paillot JL, Servien E, Henry J, Ait Si Selmi T, Neyret P. Cemented all polyethylene tibial insert unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a long term follow-up study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2009;95(1):12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2008.04.001. S1877-0568(08)00011-X [pii].

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Manzotti A, Cerveri P, Pullen C, Confalonieri N. A flat all-polyethylene tibial component in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a long-term study. Knee. 2014;21(Suppl 1):S20–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0968-0160(14)50005-1.S0968-0160(14)50005-1 [pii].

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hawi N, Plutat J, Kendoff D, Suero EM, Cross MB, Gehrke T, et al. Midterm results after unicompartmental knee replacement with all-polyethylene tibial component: a single surgeon experience. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016;136(9):1303–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-016-2515-8. 10.1007/s00402-016-2515-8 [pii].

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Forster-Horvath C, Artz N, Hassaballa MA, Robinson JR, Porteous AJ, Murray JR, et al. 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. 2016;23(6):981–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2016.07.003. S0968-0160(16)30104-1 [pii].

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Furnes O, Espehaug B, Lie SA, Vollset SE, Engesaeter LB, Havelin LI. Failure mechanisms after unicompartmental and tricompartmental primary knee replacement with cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(3):519–25. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00210. 89/3/519 [pii].

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hutt JR, Farhadnia P, Masse V, LaVigne M, Vendittoli PA. A randomised trial of all-polyethylene and metal-backed tibial components in unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee. Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B(6):786–92. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B6.35433. 97-B/6/786 [pii].

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. The New Zealand Joint Registry. Eighteen Year Report January 1999 to December 2016. Wellington, New Zealand; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Campi S, Pandit HG, Dodd CAF, Murray DW. Cementless fixation in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25(3):736–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4244-5. 10.1007/s00167-016-4244-5 [pii].

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Akan B, Karaguven D, Guclu B, Yildirim T, Kaya A, Armangil M, et al. Cemented versus uncemented Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is there a difference? Adv Orthop. 2013;2013:245915. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/245915.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Yildirim G, Gopalakrishnan A, Davignon RA, Parker JW, Chawla H, Pearle AD. Comparative fixation and subsidence profiles of cementless unicompartmental knee arthroplasty implants. J Arthroplast. 2016;31(9):2019–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.02.034. S0883-5403(16)00177-7 [pii].

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. van der List JP, Sheng DL, Kleeblad LJ, Chawla H, Pearle AD. Outcomes of cementless unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Knee. 2017;24(3):497–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2016.10.010. S0968-0160(16)30176-4 [pii].

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Schlueter-Brust K, Kugland K, Stein G, Henckel J, Christ H, Eysel P, et al. Ten year survivorship after cemented and uncemented medial Uniglide(R) unicompartmental knee arthroplasties. Knee. 2014;21(5):964–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2014.03.009. S0968-0160(14)00066-0 [pii].

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Panzram B, Bertlich I, Reiner T, Walker T, Hagmann S, Gotterbarm T. Cementless Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement: an independent series with a 5-year-follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017;137(7):1011–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2696-9. 10.1007/s00402-017-2696-9 [pii].

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Pandit H, Liddle AD, Kendrick BJ, Jenkins C, Price AJ, Gill HS, et al. Improved fixation in cementless unicompartmental knee replacement: five-year results of a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(15):1365–72. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.01005. 1719859 [pii].

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kendrick BJ, Kaptein BL, Valstar ER, Gill HS, Jackson WF, Dodd CA, et al. Cemented versus cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using radiostereometric analysis: a randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B(2):185–91. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B2.34331. 97-B/2/185 [pii].

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Seeger JB, Haas D, Jager S, Rohner E, Tohtz S, Clarius M. Extended sagittal saw cut significantly reduces fracture load in cementless unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compared to cemented tibia plateaus: an experimental cadaver study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(6):1087–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-011-1698-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. O'Donnell T, Neil MJ. The Repicci II(R) unicondylar knee arthroplasty: 9-year survivorship and function. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(11):3094–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1474-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Romanowski MR, Repicci JA. Minimally invasive unicondylar arthroplasty: eight-year follow-up. J Knee Surg. 2002;15(1):17–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Jacofsky DJ, Allen M. Robotics in arthroplasty: a comprehensive review. J Arthroplast. 2016;31(10):2353–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.05.026.S0883-5403(16)30164-4 [pii].

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Sassoon A, Nam D, Nunley R, Barrack R. Systematic review of patient-specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: new but not improved. Clin Orthop Relat Res.2015;473(1):151–8.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3804-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Carpenter DP, Holmberg RR, Quartulli MJ, Barnes CL. Tibial plateau coverage in UKA: a comparison of patient specific and off-the-shelf implants. J Arthroplast. 2014;29(9):1694–8.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.03.026. S0883-5403(14)00198-3 [pii].

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Demange MK, Von Keudell A, Probst C, Yoshioka H, Gomoll AH. Patient-specific implants for lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2015;39(8):1519–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2678-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Pearle AD, van der List JP, Lee L, Coon TM, Borus TA, Roche MW. Survivorship and patient satisfaction of robotic-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum two-year follow-up. Knee. 2017;24(2):419–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2016.12.001. S0968-0160(16)30242-3 [pii].

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Sinha R, Burkhardt J, Martin G, Mack D, Dauphine R, Levine M et al. Customized, individually made unicondylar knee replacement: a prospective, multicenter study of 2-year clinical outcomes. In: Proceedings of the 2014 Harvard Arthroplasty Course, Cambridge. Oct 7–10, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Atsui K, Tateishi H, Futani H, Maruo S. Ceramic unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee joint. Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 1997;56(4):233–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Affatato S, Spinelli M, Lopomo N, Grupp TM, Marcacci M, Toni A. Can the method of fixation influence the wear behaviour of ZrN coated unicompartmental mobile knee prostheses? Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2011;26(2):152–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2010.09.010. S0268-0033(10)00258-5 [pii].

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Malikian R, Maruthainar K, Stammers J, Wilding CP, Blunn GW. Four station knee simulator wear testing comparing titanium niobium nitride with cobalt chrome. J Bioeng Biomed Sci. 2013;3(3):1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Thienpont E. Titanium niobium nitride knee implants are not inferior to chrome cobalt components for primary total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015;135(12):1749–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2320-9. 10.1007/s00402-015-2320-9 [pii].

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Varadarajan KM, Holtzman DJ, Li G, Lange J, Haas SB, Rubash HE, et al. Implant designs of total knee arthroplasty. In: Mont MA, Tanzer M, editors. Orthopaedic knowledge update hip and knee reconstruction 5. Rosemont: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 2016. p. 113–30.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Grupp TM, Utzschneider S, Schroder C, Schwiesau J, Fritz B, Maas A, et al. Biotribology of alternative bearing materials for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Acta Biomater. 2010;6(9):3601–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2010.04.003. S1742-7061(10)00181-9 [pii].

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Brockett CL, Carbone S, Fisher J, Jennings LM. PEEK and CFR-PEEK as alternative bearing materials to UHMWPE in a fixed bearing total knee replacement: an experimental wear study. Wear. 2017;374–375:86–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2016.12.010. S0043-1648(16)30749-9 [pii].

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Chaudhary M, Walker PS. Analysis of an early intervention distal femoral resurfacing implant for medial osteoarthritis. J Biomech. 2016; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.09.039.S0021-9290(16)31053-3 [pii].

  59. Haider H, Walker P, Weisenburger J, Garvin K. Wear of unicompartmental knee replacements: standard and reversed material couples. Bone Joint J Orthop Proc Suppl. 2017;99-B(Supp 4):6.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Chaudhary ME, Walker PS. Analysis of an early intervention tibial component for medial osteoarthritis. J Biomech Eng. 2014;136(6):061008. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4027467. 1864205 [pii]

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Bodycad. Park City, UT, USA. https://bodycad.com/en/home. Accessed 20 Nov 2017.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technology Implementation Research Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital|, Boston, MA, USA

    Kartik Mangudi Varadarajan

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Kartik Mangudi Varadarajan & Andrew A. Freiberg

  3. Avon Orthopaedic Centre, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK

    Andrew Porteous

Authors
  1. Kartik Mangudi Varadarajan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew Porteous
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrew A. Freiberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kartik Mangudi Varadarajan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Locomotion, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France

    Jean-Noël A. Argenson

  2. University of Maryland St. Joseph Medical Center, Towson, MD, USA

    David F. Dalury

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Varadarajan, K.M., Porteous, A., Freiberg, A.A. (2019). Tibiofemoral Partial Knee Arthroplasty Implant Designs. In: Argenson, JN., Dalury, D. (eds) Partial Knee Arthroplasty. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94250-6_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94250-6_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-94249-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-94250-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation