{"id":5267,"date":"2025-02-23T14:09:00","date_gmt":"2025-02-23T14:09:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.orthogate.org\/press\/uncategorized\/uka-versus-tka-a-comparison\/"},"modified":"2025-02-23T19:46:40","modified_gmt":"2025-02-23T19:46:40","slug":"uka-versus-tka-a-comparison","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.orthogate.org\/press\/deep-research\/joint-arthroplasty-balancing-innovation-and-evidence\/uka-versus-tka-a-comparison\/","title":{"rendered":"UKA versus TKA: A Comparison"},"content":{"rendered":"

Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty vs. Total Knee Arthroplasty: Indications, Outcomes, Revision Rates, and Surgical Techniques<\/span><\/span><\/h1>\n

Introduction<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent cause of knee pain and disability, often necessitating surgical intervention when conservative treatments fail. While total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has long been the gold standard for treating end-stage knee OA, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has emerged as a less invasive alternative for individuals with disease isolated to a single compartment of the knee<\/span>1<\/sup><\/span>. Since its first definition, UKA has become a common procedure for the treatment of single-compartment OA, restoring knee biomechanics with minimal bone and soft tissue damage<\/span>1<\/sup><\/span>. This article provides a comprehensive evaluation of UKA and TKA, comparing their indications, outcomes, and revision rates. It also discusses patient selection criteria and surgical techniques for optimizing results and minimizing complications.<\/span><\/p>\n

Indications and Contraindications for UKA<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n

UKA is considered for patients with OA or osteonecrosis confined to a single compartment of the knee, most commonly the medial compartment<\/span>2<\/sup><\/span>. Ideal candidates typically have:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Age greater than 60 years (although this is no longer a strict criterion):<\/b><\/span> While age was initially a significant factor in patient selection, advancements in implant technology and surgical techniques have expanded the indications for UKA to include younger individuals<\/span>3<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. Weight less than 82 kg (although this is also evolving):<\/b><\/span> Similar to age, weight was previously considered a major factor in UKA candidacy. However, recent studies have shown positive outcomes in patients with higher BMIs, particularly with mobile-bearing UKA designs<\/span>3<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
  3. Minimal pain at rest:<\/b><\/span> This criterion helps to ensure that the pain is primarily related to the affected compartment and not due to more widespread joint involvement<\/span>3<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
  4. Preoperative arc of motion greater than 90 degrees:<\/b><\/span> Adequate range of motion is essential for successful UKA, as it allows for proper implant positioning and postoperative function<\/span>3<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
  5. Flexion contracture less than 5 degrees:<\/b><\/span> A significant flexion contracture can limit postoperative range of motion and may necessitate more extensive soft tissue releases during surgery<\/span>3<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
  6. Angular deformity less than 15 degrees, passively correctable to neutral:<\/b><\/span> Excessive deformity can affect implant stability and increase the risk of complications<\/span>3<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
  7. Intact anterior cruciate ligament (ACL):<\/b><\/span> The ACL plays a crucial role in knee stability and kinematics. An intact ACL is generally considered essential for successful UKA, although there is ongoing debate regarding its importance in medial compartment replacements<\/span>3<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
  8. No inflammatory arthritis:<\/b><\/span> Inflammatory arthritis typically affects multiple compartments of the knee and is therefore a contraindication for UKA<\/span>4<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    In addition to these criteria, the Kozinn and Scott criteria, established in 1989, provide a historical context and specific guidelines for UKA patient selection<\/span>6<\/sup><\/span>. These criteria emphasize factors such as patient age, weight, preoperative range of motion, angular deformity, and the extent of intraoperative cartilage erosions<\/span>6<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Furthermore, the presence of patellofemoral joint arthritis is a controversial factor in UKA candidacy<\/span>4<\/sup><\/span>. While some studies suggest that progression of OA in the patellofemoral joint after UKA is rare, others consider it a contraindication<\/span>4<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Contraindications for UKA include:<\/span><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Inflammatory arthropathy<\/span> 4<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n
    2. Previous high tibial osteotomy (HTO) with overcorrection<\/span> 4<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n
    3. Sepsis<\/span> 4<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n
    4. Cruciate ligament lesion<\/span> 4<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n
    5. Medial or lateral subluxation<\/span> 4<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n
    6. Tibial or femoral shaft deformity<\/span> 4<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n
    7. Flexion contracture greater than 15 degrees<\/span> 4<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n
    8. Varus deformity greater than 15 degrees (medial UKA)<\/span> 4<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n
    9. Valgus deformity greater than 20 degrees (lateral UKA)<\/span> 4<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n
    10. Flexion less than 110 degrees<\/span> 4<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Patient Selection Criteria for TKA<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n

      The minimum requirement for TKA is a clinical, intrinsic knee problem with symptoms, such as intractable pain, that significantly affect the patient’s quality of life<\/span>7<\/sup><\/span>. The potential for meaningful improvement from surgery should justify the risks<\/span>7<\/sup><\/span>. Other factors to consider include:<\/span><\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Radiographically evident knee pathology<\/span> 7<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n
      2. Stiffness, instability, and deformity<\/span> 7<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n
      3. Failure of less risky alternatives<\/span> 7<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n
      4. Age (both young and old age may present different challenges)<\/span> 7<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n
      5. Comorbidities (e.g., cardiac, respiratory, diabetes, obesity)<\/span> 7<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n
      6. Psychosocial factors (e.g., anxiety, depression)<\/span> 7<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        It is important to note that for patients with one-compartment arthritis, minimally invasive partial knee replacement (mini knee) may be a viable alternative to TKA<\/span>8<\/sup><\/span>. This less invasive procedure can preserve more of the natural knee joint while addressing the affected compartment.<\/span><\/p>\n

        Surgical Techniques for Optimal Results<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n

        UKA Surgical Technique<\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n

        The surgical approach for UKA should minimize soft tissue release while providing adequate exposure of the affected compartment<\/span>9<\/sup><\/span>. Key steps include:<\/span><\/p>\n

          \n
        1. Incision and Exposure:<\/b><\/span> A longitudinal incision is made, and the capsule is accessed using a subvastus, midvastus, or mini-parapatellar arthrotomy<\/span>9<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
        2. Osteophyte Removal:<\/b><\/span> Peripheral osteophytes are removed from the femoral condyle, intercondylar notch, posterior tibial plateau, and beneath the collateral ligament<\/span>9<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
        3. Tibial Resection:<\/b><\/span> The tibial resection should match the native tibial slope, with the component placed perpendicular to the long axis of the tibia<\/span>9<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
        4. Femoral Preparation:<\/b><\/span> The femoral component should be positioned centrally or slightly laterally on the femoral condyle to optimize tracking with the tibial component<\/span>9<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          More specifically, the nine steps involved in UKA surgical technique are as follows:<\/span> 10<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

            \n
          1. Exposure (skin incision, arthrotomy, dissection)<\/span><\/li>\n
          2. Proximal tibial resection (vertical-cut marking, extramedullary jig placement and vertical cut, horizontal cut)<\/span><\/li>\n
          3. Distal femoral resection (spacer block method, gap check)<\/span><\/li>\n
          4. Femoral sizing and final femoral preparation (posterior rasping, femoral size determination and finishing guide placement, final preparation, femoral trial test)<\/span><\/li>\n
          5. Gap assessment<\/span><\/li>\n
          6. Tibial sizing and final tibial preparation<\/span><\/li>\n
          7. Trial test and polyethylene insert selection<\/span><\/li>\n
          8. Implant cementation (tibial cementation, femoral cementation, final assessment and implantation)<\/span><\/li>\n
          9. Placement of polyethylene insert and wound closure<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            TKA Surgical Technique<\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n

            TKA involves a more extensive approach with the following key steps:<\/span><\/p>\n

              \n
            1. Incision and Exposure:<\/b><\/span> A midline incision is made, and the joint is accessed via a medial parapatellar arthrotomy<\/span>11<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
            2. Soft Tissue Release:<\/b><\/span> The medial and lateral capsular sleeves are released to expose the joint<\/span>11<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
            3. Femoral Preparation:<\/b><\/span> An intramedullary guide is used for the distal femoral cut, and the femoral component is positioned with appropriate external rotation<\/span>11<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
            4. Tibial Preparation:<\/b><\/span> The tibial cut is made, and the component is positioned perpendicular to the mechanical axis of the tibia<\/span>11<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
            5. Patellar Preparation:<\/b><\/span> The patella is resurfaced and its tracking within the trochlea is assessed<\/span>11<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

              Outcomes and Revision Rates<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n

              UKA Outcomes<\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n

              UKA generally demonstrates better early functional outcomes compared to TKA, including:<\/span><\/p>\n

                \n
              1. Faster rehabilitation and quicker recovery<\/span> 12<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n
              2. Less blood loss<\/span> 12<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n
              3. Less morbidity<\/span> 12<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n
              4. Less expensive<\/span> 12<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n
              5. Lower rates of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and wound complications<\/span> 12<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n
              6. Preservation of normal kinematics<\/span> 12<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n
              7. Smaller incision<\/span> 12<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n
              8. Less postoperative pain<\/span> 12<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n
              9. Shorter hospital stays<\/span> 12<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n
              10. Potential for same-day discharge<\/span> 13<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                Furthermore, UKA may offer several potential benefits, such as:<\/span> 14<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

                  \n
                1. Smaller incision, leading to a smaller scar<\/span><\/li>\n
                2. Less postoperative pain due to less bone removal<\/span><\/li>\n
                3. Quicker operation and shorter recovery period<\/span><\/li>\n
                4. More progressive rehabilitation process<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                  In terms of long-term outcomes, a meta-analysis comparing UKA and TKA over five years found that:<\/span> 15<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

                    \n
                  1. Neither procedure definitively outperformed the other in terms of pain and KSS scores.<\/span><\/li>\n
                  2. UKA showed a trend towards better outcomes in KSFS and ROM.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                    However, it is important to consider that while UKA may have higher pre- and postoperative scores, the changes in scores are similar to TKA, and survival appears higher in TKA<\/span>16<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

                    TKA Outcomes<\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n

                    TKA reliably reduces pain and improves health-related quality of life in most patients<\/span>17<\/sup><\/span>. The large majority of patients report substantial or complete relief of their arthritic symptoms once they have recovered from a total knee replacement<\/span>8<\/sup><\/span>. However, functional performance may still be lower compared to healthy adults, and patients may experience limitations in certain activities<\/span>17<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

                    The early 70s could be the optimal age to undergo TKA, based on a balance of PROMs, revision rates, and mortality analysis<\/span>18<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

                    UKA Revision Rates<\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n

                    UKA has historically been associated with higher revision rates compared to TKA, particularly in the early postoperative period<\/span>19<\/sup><\/span>. This is often attributed to factors such as:<\/span><\/p>\n

                      \n
                    1. Incorrect indications<\/span> 20<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n
                    2. Surgical errors<\/span> 20<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n
                    3. Lower threshold for revision: Studies have shown that the threshold for revision may be lower for UKA than TKA, even with similar outcome scores<\/span>3<\/sup><\/span>. This may be due to the relative ease of converting a UKA to a TKA compared to revising a TKA.<\/span><\/li>\n
                    4. Younger and more active patient population<\/span> 3<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n
                    5. Surgeon experience and volume: UKA revision rates are reportedly higher for low-volume surgeons compared to high-volume surgeons<\/span>3<\/sup><\/span>. Optimal outcomes in UKA are seen when surgeon usage is 40%-60%<\/span>3<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                      However, recent studies suggest that with proper patient selection, improved implant technology, and increased surgeon experience, UKA can achieve comparable survivorship to TKA<\/span>3<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

                      It is important to note that a meta-analysis comparing UKA revised to TKA versus primary TKA found no significant difference in the risk of revision, total complications, range of motion, or length of stay<\/span>22<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

                      TKA Revision Rates<\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n

                      TKA has demonstrated excellent long-term survivorship, with reported rates exceeding 90% at 10 years<\/span>18<\/sup><\/span>. However, revision rates may be higher in younger patients<\/span>23<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

                      Latest Advancements in Surgical Techniques and Implant Technology<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n

                      Advancements in UKA and TKA<\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n

                      Both UKA and TKA have benefited from advancements in robotic-assisted surgery. Robotic systems enhance surgical precision and accuracy, potentially leading to better outcomes and fewer complications<\/span>24<\/sup><\/span>. In UKA, robotics has the potential to overcome challenges related to smaller incisions and lack of visibility<\/span>26<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

                      UKA-Specific Advancements<\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n
                        \n
                      1. Minimally invasive techniques:<\/b><\/span> These techniques aim to reduce tissue trauma and improve recovery times<\/span>27<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
                      2. Improved implant designs:<\/b><\/span> Newer implants offer better fixation, reduced wear, and improved kinematics<\/span>2<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                        TKA-Specific Advancements<\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n
                          \n
                        1. Patient-specific instrumentation:<\/b><\/span> Customized implants based on individual anatomy may improve fit and function<\/span>25<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
                        2. 3D printing:<\/b><\/span> This technology allows for the creation of personalized implants with enhanced osseointegration<\/span>28<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
                        3. Smart implants:<\/b><\/span> Implants with sensors can monitor knee function and provide valuable data for personalized rehabilitation and early detection of complications<\/span>28<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n
                        4. Cementless procedures:<\/b><\/span> Cementless procedures can be a good option for patients with strong, healthy bones, potentially extending the longevity of the implant<\/span>29<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                          Role of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n

                          UKA Rehabilitation<\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n

                          Physical therapy plays a crucial role in optimizing outcomes after UKA<\/span>30<\/sup><\/span>. It is important throughout the entire treatment process, including pre- and postoperative care<\/span>31<\/sup><\/span>. Rehabilitation focuses on:<\/span><\/p>\n

                            \n
                          1. Reducing pain and swelling<\/span> 30<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n
                          2. Restoring range of motion<\/span> 30<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n
                          3. Improving muscle strength and endurance<\/span> 30<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n
                          4. Normalizing gait<\/span> 30<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                            TKA Rehabilitation<\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n

                            Rehabilitation after TKA aims to:<\/span><\/p>\n

                              \n
                            1. Decrease swelling<\/span> 32<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n
                            2. Increase range of motion<\/span> 32<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n
                            3. Enhance muscle control and strength<\/span> 32<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n
                            4. Maximize mobility and functional independence<\/span> 32<\/sup><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                              Various rehabilitation programs after TKA may lead to comparable improvements in pain, range of motion, and activities of daily living<\/span>33<\/sup><\/span>. Rehabilitation in the acute phase may lead to increased strength<\/span>33<\/sup><\/span>. Physical therapy services for pre\/post knee and hip replacement rehabilitation are often offered<\/span>34<\/sup><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

                              Conclusion<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n

                              UKA and TKA are both viable options for treating knee OA, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. UKA offers a less invasive approach with potentially faster recovery and better preservation of knee kinematics, but it may have a higher risk of revision, especially in the early postoperative period. TKA provides reliable pain relief and functional improvement with excellent long-term survivorship, but it is a more extensive procedure with a longer recovery time.<\/span><\/p>\n

                              Careful patient selection, meticulous surgical technique, and appropriate rehabilitation are essential for optimizing outcomes and minimizing complications for both procedures. Recent advancements in surgical techniques and implant technology continue to improve the results of both UKA and TKA, offering patients better pain relief, improved function, and a higher quality of life.<\/span><\/p>\n

                              Synthesis of Findings<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
                              Feature<\/b><\/span><\/th>\nUKA<\/b><\/span><\/th>\nTKA<\/b><\/span><\/th>\nAdvantages of UKA<\/b><\/span><\/th>\nAdvantages of TKA<\/b><\/span><\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
                              Indications<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nSingle-compartment OA, intact ACL, limited deformity<\/span><\/td>\nAdvanced OA, multiple compartments involved<\/span><\/td>\nLess invasive, smaller incision, bone preservation, faster recovery, less pain, better kinematics, lower cost<\/span><\/td>\nReliable pain relief, improved function, excellent long-term survivorship<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                              Surgical Technique<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nLess extensive, preserves more natural structures<\/span><\/td>\nMore extensive, larger incision<\/span><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                              Outcomes<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nFaster rehabilitation, less blood loss, less morbidity, less expensive, lower rates of PJI and wound complications, preservation of normal kinematics, smaller incision, less postoperative pain, shorter hospital stays, potential for same-day discharge<\/span><\/td>\nReliably reduces pain, improves health-related quality of life<\/span><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                              Revision Rates<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nHigher early revision rates, but improving with advancements<\/span><\/td>\nExcellent long-term survivorship<\/span><\/td>\n<\/td>\nLower long-term revision rates<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                              Patient Selection<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nStricter criteria, focus on age, weight, and activity level<\/span><\/td>\nBroader criteria, considers comorbidities and psychosocial factors<\/span><\/td>\n<\/td>\nMore versatile for various patient profiles<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                              Rehabilitation<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nFocus on early mobilization and restoring range of motion<\/span><\/td>\nComprehensive program addressing strength, balance, and function<\/span><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                              Advancements<\/b><\/span><\/td>\nMinimally invasive techniques, robotics, improved implants<\/span><\/td>\nRobotics, patient-specific instrumentation, 3D printing, smart implants, cementless procedures<\/span><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

                              This table summarizes the key differences between UKA and TKA, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of each procedure. The choice between UKA and TKA depends on various factors, including the patient’s individual needs, the extent of their OA, and their overall health status. By carefully considering these factors, surgeons and patients can make informed decisions that lead to the best possible outcomes.<\/span><\/p>\n

                              Works cited<\/span><\/h4>\n

                              1. TRENDS IN UNICOMPARTMENTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY – PMC, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/articles\/PMC7006530\/<\/a><\/p>\n

                              2. Arthroplasty Knee Unicompartmental – StatPearls – NCBI Bookshelf, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/books\/NBK538267\/<\/a><\/p>\n

                              3. Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Could Be Right for 50% of Patients With Osteoarthritis, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/consultqd.clevelandclinic.org\/unicompartmental-knee-arthroplasty-could-be-right-for-50-of-patients-with-osteoarthritis<\/a><\/p>\n

                              4. Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Background, Indications, Contraindications, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/emedicine.medscape.com\/article\/1252912-overview<\/a><\/p>\n

                              5. Selection criteria for UKA | Download Table – ResearchGate, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/www.researchgate.net\/figure\/Selection-criteria-for-UKA_tbl1_5437559<\/a><\/p>\n

                              6. Unicondylar knee arthroplasty. An evaluation of selection criteria – PubMed, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/8425335\/<\/a><\/p>\n

                              7. www.mja.com.au, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/www.mja.com.au\/system\/files\/issues\/210_03\/mja212109.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

                              8. Total Knee Replacement: A Patient’s Guide | UW Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/orthop.washington.edu\/patient-care\/articles\/knee\/total-knee-replacement-a-patients-guide.html<\/a><\/p>\n

                              9. iBalance\u00ae UKA System – Arthrex, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/cdn.arthrex.io\/image\/upload\/fcf88992-7d35-432e-b8ef-cb648e16755a.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

                              10. Evidence-based surgical technique for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty – PMC, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/articles\/PMC7792201\/<\/a><\/p>\n

                              11. TKA – Parapatellar Approach – Orthobullets, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/www.orthobullets.com\/approaches\/12213\/tka–parapatellar-approach<\/a><\/p>\n

                              12. Unicompartmental Knee Replacement – Recon – Orthobullets, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/www.orthobullets.com\/recon\/5020\/unicompartmental-knee-replacement<\/a><\/p>\n

                              13. Day Case Unicompartmental Knee Replacement, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/www.uhcw.nhs.uk\/download\/clientfiles\/files\/Patient%20Information%20Leaflets\/Trauma%20and%20Neuro%20services\/Trauma%20and%20Orthopaedics\/Unicompartmental%20Knee%20Replacement.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

                              14. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty – Wikipedia, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Unicompartmental_knee_arthroplasty<\/a><\/p>\n

                              15. Comparative long-term outcomes of unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty in knee osteoarthritis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis – Frontiers, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/www.frontiersin.org\/journals\/surgery\/articles\/10.3389\/fsurg.2024.1405025\/full<\/a><\/p>\n

                              16. Unicompartmental Versus Total Knee Arthroplasty Database Analysis: Is There a Winner?, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/articles\/PMC3237994\/<\/a><\/p>\n

                              17. Outcomes Before and After Total Knee Arthroplasty Compared to Healthy Adults – PMC, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/articles\/PMC3164265\/<\/a><\/p>\n

                              18. Is there an optimal age for total knee arthroplasty?: A systematic review – PMC, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/articles\/PMC7667791\/<\/a><\/p>\n

                              19. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty has higher revisions than total knee arthroplasty at long term follow-up: a registry study on 6453 prostheses – PMC – PubMed Central, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/articles\/PMC8458185\/<\/a><\/p>\n

                              20. Update on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Current indications and failure modes, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/articles\/PMC6134885\/<\/a><\/p>\n

                              21. A comparison of clinical thresholds for revision following total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty – PubMed, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/36854342\/<\/a><\/p>\n

                              22. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revised to total knee arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis of matched studies – PubMed, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/37708740\/<\/a><\/p>\n

                              23. Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA): When Do the Risks of TKA Overcome the Benefits? Double Risk of Failure in Patients up to 65 Years Old, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/articles\/PMC10601565\/<\/a><\/p>\n

                              24. Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Past, Present, Future – JISRF Reconstructive Review March 2013, accessed February 17, 2025, http:\/\/www.jisrf.org\/unicompartmental-knee-arthroplasty-past-present-future.html<\/a><\/p>\n

                              25. Revolutionizing Recovery: Exploring the Latest Advancements in Knee Surgery, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/plancherortho.com\/recovery-exploring-the-latest-advancements-in-knee-surgery\/<\/a><\/p>\n

                              26. DePuy Synthes Receives 510(k) FDA Clearance of the VELYS\u2122 Robotic-Assisted Solution for Use in Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Procedures, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/www.jnj.com\/media-center\/press-releases\/depuy-synthes-receives-510k-fda-clearance-of-the-velys-robotic-assisted-solution-for-use-in-unicompartmental-knee-arthroplasty-procedures<\/a><\/p>\n

                              27. What are the Latest Advancement in Joint Replacement in U.K? – Prof. Nikhil Pradhan, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/nikhilpradhan.co.uk\/what-are-advancements-in-joint-replacements\/<\/a><\/p>\n

                              28. Advances in total knee replacement technology – Norton Healthcare Provider, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/nortonhealthcareprovider.com\/news\/latest-knee-replacement-technology\/<\/a><\/p>\n

                              29. How new joint replacement technologies help recovery, durability …, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/www.uchicagomedicine.org\/forefront\/orthopaedics-articles\/joint-replacement-tech-benefits<\/a><\/p>\n

                              30. UNICOMPARTMENTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY (UKA) PROTOCOL – Ohio State College of Medicine, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/medicine.osu.edu\/-\/media\/files\/medicine\/departments\/sports-medicine\/medical-professionals\/knee-ankle-and-foot\/unicompartmental-knee-arthroplasty_2023.pdf?rev=5f85943fcddf4f50857e9623edafc6e2&hash=6408F262D78ADEFA02FB552DAB4CB782<\/a><\/p>\n

                              31. UNICOMPARTMENTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY (UKA) | ACE Physical Therapy and Sports Medicine Institute, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/ace-pt.org\/ace-physical-therapy-and-sports-medicine-institute-unicompartmental-knee-arthroplasty-uka\/<\/a><\/p>\n

                              32. Total Knee Arthroplasty Protocol: – Brigham and Women’s Hospital, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/www.brighamandwomens.org\/assets\/bwh\/patients-and-families\/rehabilitation-services\/pdfs\/knee-tkr-protocol-bwh.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

                              33. Rehabilitation for Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review – PMC, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/articles\/PMC9464796\/<\/a><\/p>\n

                              34. Physical Therapy – UK HealthCare, accessed February 17, 2025, https:\/\/ukhealthcare.uky.edu\/services\/physical-therapy<\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                              Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty vs. Total Knee Arthroplasty: Indications, Outcomes, Revision Rates, and Surgical Techniques Introduction Osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent cause of knee pain and disability, often necessitating surgical intervention when conservative treatments fail. While total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has long been the gold standard for treating end-stage knee OA, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5307,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[527],"tags":[520,565,307,162,562,495,564,549,556,563],"class_list":["post-5267","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-joint-arthroplasty-balancing-innovation-and-evidence","tag-arthroplasty","tag-implants","tag-knee","tag-osteoarthritis","tag-outcomes","tag-rehabilitation","tag-revision","tag-surgical-technique","tag-tka","tag-uka"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.orthogate.org\/press\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5267","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.orthogate.org\/press\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.orthogate.org\/press\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.orthogate.org\/press\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.orthogate.org\/press\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5267"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.orthogate.org\/press\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5267\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.orthogate.org\/press\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5307"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.orthogate.org\/press\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5267"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.orthogate.org\/press\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5267"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.orthogate.org\/press\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5267"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}