The routine of surgical management reduces failure after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

A total of 10,474 unicompartmental knee arthroplasties was performed for medial osteoarthritis in Sweden between 1986 and 1995. We sought to establish whether the number of operations performed in an orthopaedic unit affected the incidence of revision. Three different implants were analysed: one with a high revision rate, known to have unfavourable mechanical and design properties; a prosthesis which is technically demanding with a known increased rate of revision; and the most commonly used unicompartmental device. Most of the units performed relatively few unicompartmental knee arthroplasties per year and there was an association between the mean number carried out and the risk of later revision. The effect of the mean number of operations per year on the risk of revision varied. The technically demanding implant was most affected, that most commonly used less so, and the outcome of the unfavourable design was not influenced by the number of operations performed. For unicompartmental arthroplasty, the long-term results are related to the number performed by the unit, probably expressing the standards of management in selecting the patients and performing the operation.

[1]  C. Lavernia,et al.  Relationship of surgical volume to short-term mortality, morbidity, and hospital charges in arthroplasty. , 1995, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[2]  L. Lidgren,et al.  Validation of the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register: a postal survey regarding 30,376 knees operated on between 1975 and 1995. , 1999, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[3]  L. Lidgren,et al.  Oxford meniscal bearing knee versus the Marmor knee in unicompartmental arthroplasty for arthrosis. A Swedish multicenter survival study. , 1995, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[4]  L. Lidgren,et al.  The Swedish knee arthroplasty register. A nation-wide study of 30,003 knees 1976-1992. , 1994, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[5]  B. Espehaug,et al.  The effect of hospital-type and operating volume on the survival of hip replacements. A review of 39,505 primary total hip replacements reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, 1988-1996. , 1999, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[6]  D W Murray,et al.  Survival analysis of joint replacements. , 1993, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[7]  H Bergenudd,et al.  Porous-coated anatomic unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in osteoarthritis. A 3- to 9-year follow-up study. , 1995, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[8]  B. Gutierrez,et al.  Does hospital procedure-specific volume affect treatment costs? A national study of knee replacement surgery. , 1998, Health services research.

[9]  A. Lindstrand,et al.  Multicenter study of unicompartmental knee revision. PCA, Marmor, and St Georg compared in 3,777 cases of arthrosis. , 1992, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[10]  D W Murray,et al.  The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a ten-year survival study. , 1998, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[11]  J W Goodfellow,et al.  The Oxford Knee for unicompartmental osteoarthritis. The first 103 cases. , 1988, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[12]  J. Williams,et al.  Are complication rates for elective primary total hip arthroplasty in Ontario related to surgeon and hospital volumes? A preliminary investigation. , 1998, Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie.

[13]  T. Sculco.  The case for total knee replacement in unicompartmental knee arthritis. , 1994, Orthopedics.

[14]  F. Dorey,et al.  The need for confidence intervals in the presentation of orthopaedic data. , 1993, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.