Skip to main content
Log in

Sports activities after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty Oxford III—What can we expect?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Excellent long-term results have been reported for implantation of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). In many patients the desire for improvement in function often includes an aspiration to return to sports. The purpose of our study was to evaluate physical activities after medial Oxford-III (Biomet) UKA surgery.

Methods

Patients’ physical activity before and after the surgery was assessed using a self reporting questionnaire. We used the Oxford knee scoring system (OKS), the WOMAC-, the Knee society- (KSS) and the UCLA-score to assess postoperative knee function. The mean follow-up was 4.2 years. The female-to-male ratio was 1.3:1. The mean age at surgery was 65.3 years.

Results

Of the 131 patients studied 78 participated in some kind of sports before surgery (mean age 64.4 years), while 53 patients did not perform any sports (mean age 66.5 years) (p > 0.05). At follow-up the patients in the active group were significantly younger than the patients in the inactive group (p < 0.05). The majority of patients (80.1 %) returned to their level of sports activity after UKA surgery. Six patients took up sports after surgery while 15 patients stopped their sports. Among the active patients we found a shift from high- towards low-impact sports. The active patients had significantly higher scores for the OKS, KSS, WOMAC and UCLA score. The complication rate was comparable in both groups.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates that a high degree of patient satisfaction in terms of sports activity can be achieved using the Oxford-III UKA for medial osteoarthritis.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Amendola A, Bonasia DE (2010) Results of high tibial osteotomy: review of the literature. Int Orthop 34(2):155–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW (1988) Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 15(12):1833–1840

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A (1998) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80(1):63–69

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Emerson RH Jr, Higgins LL (2008) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with the oxford prosthesis in patients with medial compartment arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90(1):118–122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Englund M, Lohmander LS (2005) Patellofemoral osteoarthritis coexistent with tibiofemoral osteoarthritis in a meniscectomy population. Ann Rheum Dis 64(12):1721–1726

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Fisher N, Agarwal M, Reuben SF, Johnson DS, Turner PG (2006) Sporting and physical activity following Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee 13(4):296–300

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hollinghurst D, Stoney J, Ward T et al (2006) No deterioration of kinematics and cruciate function 10 years after medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Knee 13(6):440–444

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hopper GP, Leach WJ (2008) Participation in sporting activities following knee replacement: total versus unicompartmental. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16(10):973–979

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the knee society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:13–14

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jahromi I, Walton NP, Dobson PJ, Lewis PL, Campbell DG (2004) Patient-perceived outcome measures following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with mini-incision. Int Orthop 28(5):286–289

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kang SN, Smith TO, Sprenger De Rover WB, Walton NP (2011) Pre-operative patellofemoral degenerative changes do not affect the outcome after medial Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement: a report from an independent centre. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(4):476–478

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS (1957) Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis 16(4):494–502

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Lisowski LA, van den Bekerom MP, Pilot P, van Dijk CN, Lisowski AE (2011) Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: medium-term results of a minimally invasive surgical procedure. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19(2):277–284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. McClung CD, Zahiri CA, Higa JK, Amstutz HC, Schmalzried TP (2000) Relationship between body mass index and activity in hip or knee arthroplasty patients. J Orthop Res 18(1):35–39

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Mercier N, Wimsey S, Saragaglia D (2010) Long-term clinical results of the Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 34(8):1137–1143

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Muller PE, Pellengahr C, Witt M, Kircher J, Refior HJ, Jansson V (2004) Influence of minimally invasive surgery on implant positioning and the functional outcome for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 19(3):296–301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Naal FD, Fischer M, Preuss A et al (2007) Return to sports and recreational activity after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Am J Sports Med 35(10):1688–1695

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Newman JH (2000) Unicompartmental knee replacement. Knee 7(2):63–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Saragaglia D, Estour G, Nemer C, Colle PE (2009) Revision of 33 unicompartmental knee prostheses using total knee arthroplasty: strategy and results. Int Orthop 33(4):969–974

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sperner G, Wanitschek P, Benedetto KP, Glotzer W (1990) Late results in patellar fracture. Aktuelle Traumatol 20(1):24–28

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Stukenborg-Colsman C, Wirth CJ, Lazovic D, Wefer A (2001) High tibial osteotomy versus unicompartmental joint replacement in unicompartmental knee joint osteoarthritis: 7-10-year follow-up prospective randomised study. Knee 8(3):187–194

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Swanson EA, Schmalzried TP, Dorey FJ (2009) Activity recommendations after total hip and knee arthroplasty: a survey of the American Association for Hip and Knee Surgeons. J Arthroplasty 24(6 Suppl):120–126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Vorlat P, Putzeys G, Cottenie D et al (2006) The Oxford unicompartmental knee prosthesis: an independent 10-year survival analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 14(1):40–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Walton NP, Jahromi I, Lewis PL, Dobson PJ, Angel KR, Campbell DG (2006) Patient-perceived outcomes and return to sport and work: TKA versus mini-incision unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 19(2):112–116

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Zahiri CA, Schmalzried TP, Szuszczewicz ES, Amstutz HC (1998) Assessing activity in joint replacement patients. J Arthroplasty 13(8):890–895

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter E. Müller.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pietschmann, M.F., Wohlleb, L., Weber, P. et al. Sports activities after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty Oxford III—What can we expect?. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 37, 31–37 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1710-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1710-7

Keywords

Navigation