Annual revision rates of partial versus total knee arthroplasty: A comparative meta-analysis

Utilization of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) as alternatives to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis (OA) has increased. However, no single resource consolidates survivorship data between TKA and partial resurfacing options for each variant of unicompartmental OA. This meta-analysis compared survivorship between TKA and medial UKA (MUKA), lateral UKA (LUKA) and PFA using annual revision rate as a standardized metric.

A systematic literature search was performed for studies quantifying TKA, MUKA, LUKA and/or PFA implant survivorship. Studies were classified by evidence level and assessed for bias using the MINORS and PEDro instruments. Annual revision rates were calculated for each arthroplasty procedure as percentages/observed component-year, based on a Poisson-normal model with random effects using the R-statistical software package.

One hundred and twenty-four studies (113 cohort and 11 registry-based studies) met inclusion/exclusion criteria, providing data for 374,934 arthroplasties and 14,991 revisions. The overall evidence level was low, with 96.7% of studies classified as level III–IV. Annual revision rates were lowest for TKA (0.49%, CI 0.41 to 0.58), followed by MUKA (1.07%, CI 0.87 to 1.31), LUKA (1.13%, CI 0.69 to 1.83) and PFA (1.75%, CI 1.19 to 2.57). No difference was detected between revision rates for MUKA and LUKA (p = 0.222).

Revisions of MUKA, LUKA and PFA occur at an annual rate of 2.18, 2.31 and 3.57-fold that of TKA, respectively. These estimates may be used to inform clinical decision-making, guide patient expectations and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of total versus partial knee replacement in the setting of unicompartmental OA.