Outcomes of total knee arthroplasty, with revision surgery as an endpoint, following previous periarticular osteotomy or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Aims: This study evaluates the risk of revision of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in patients with a history of previous periarticular osteotomy compared with those with a history of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Understanding the differences in TKA outcome following these procedures is important for informed decision-making and patient counselling when considering osteotomy or UKA in the management of single-compartment osteoarthritis in young, high-demand patients. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis using data from the New Zealand Joint Registry, identifying 1,895 TKAs performed after prior osteotomy and 1,391 after previous UKA. We compared TKA revision rates and patient-reported outcome using the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), between the two groups at six months. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated to account for differences in demographic details. Results: The revision rate for TKA following osteotomy was significantly lower than TKA following UKA with rates of 0.88 per 100 component years (95% CI 0.74 to 1.03) versus 1.38 per 100 component years (95% CI 1.15 to 1.19), respectively. Adjusted HR calculations indicated that previous UKA more than doubled the risk of revision of TKA compared with previous osteotomy (HR 2.29, 95% CI 1.66 to 3.17; p < 0.001). In patients aged under 55 years, the risk of revision for TKA was nearly 2.5-fold for those with previous UKA compared with those with previous osteotomy (1.32, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.71 vs 3.25, 95% CI 2.01 to 4.97; p < 0.001). The mean-adjusted OKS scores at six months demonstrated a significant difference between the two groups, with improved OKS in the previous osteotomy group (34.85 (SD 0.36) vs 36.64 (SD 0.48); p < 0.001). However, this did not reach the minimal important clinical level of difference for the OKS. Conclusion: Patients undergoing TKA after periarticular osteotomy exhibit a lower risk of revision compared to those with previous UKA, particularly in younger patients. Our study enhances the understanding of the risk of revision of a TKA following previous procedures, and confirms that TKA after osteotomy performs significantly better compared with previous unicompartmental arthroplasty.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Bone & Joint Journal
Published
2026-04-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.108b4.bjj-2025-0569.r1
Primary Topic
Total Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Outcomes of total knee arthroplasty, with revision surgery as an endpoint, following previous periarticular osteotomy or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Ritwik Kejriwal, Jessica Leary, Christopher MA Frampton, Douglas Stewart Hancock
The Bone & Joint Journal
Total Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
article

Outcomes of total knee arthroplasty, with revision surgery as an endpoint, following previous periarticular osteotomy or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Ritwik Kejriwal, Jessica Leary, Christopher MA Frampton, Douglas Stewart Hancock
article en

Abstract

Aims: This study evaluates the risk of revision of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in patients with a history of previous periarticular osteotomy compared with those with a history of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Understanding the differences in TKA outcome following these procedures is important for informed decision-making and patient counselling when considering osteotomy or UKA in the management of single-compartment osteoarthritis in young, high-demand patients. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis using data from the New Zealand Joint Registry, identifying 1,895 TKAs performed after prior osteotomy and 1,391 after previous UKA. We compared TKA revision rates and patient-reported outcome using the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), between the two groups at six months. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated to account for differences in demographic details. Results: The revision rate for TKA following osteotomy was significantly lower than TKA following UKA with rates of 0.88 per 100 component years (95% CI 0.74 to 1.03) versus 1.38 per 100 component years (95% CI 1.15 to 1.19), respectively. Adjusted HR calculations indicated that previous UKA more than doubled the risk of revision of TKA compared with previous osteotomy (HR 2.29, 95% CI 1.66 to 3.17; p < 0.001). In patients aged under 55 years, the risk of revision for TKA was nearly 2.5-fold for those with previous UKA compared with those with previous osteotomy (1.32, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.71 vs 3.25, 95% CI 2.01 to 4.97; p < 0.001). The mean-adjusted OKS scores at six months demonstrated a significant difference between the two groups, with improved OKS in the previous osteotomy group (34.85 (SD 0.36) vs 36.64 (SD 0.48); p < 0.001). However, this did not reach the minimal important clinical level of difference for the OKS. Conclusion: Patients undergoing TKA after periarticular osteotomy exhibit a lower risk of revision compared to those with previous UKA, particularly in younger patients. Our study enhances the understanding of the risk of revision of a TKA following previous procedures, and confirms that TKA after osteotomy performs significantly better compared with previous unicompartmental arthroplasty.

The Bone & Joint JournalVol. 108-B(4)
Wellington Hospital (NZ), Taranaki Base Hospital (NZ), University of Otago (NZ)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 36%
Total Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.