Periprosthetic joint infection risk is comparable between unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty conversion and primary total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis
- PMID: 41358677
- DOI: 10.1002/ksa.70228
Periprosthetic joint infection risk is comparable between unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty conversion and primary total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Purpose: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) offers benefits over total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but some studies indicated higher revision rates, often involving conversion to TKA. The infection risk associated with UKA to TKA conversion compared to primary TKA is not definitively established. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine if patients undergoing UKA to TKA conversion had a higher rate of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) compared to primary TKA.
Methods: Following preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines, PubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS were searched for clinical studies comparing PJI rates in adult patients undergoing UKA to TKA conversion versus primary TKA. Data on reoperations and component use were also extracted. A random-effects model was used for the meta-analysis.
Results: Six retrospective studies involving 456 UKA to TKA conversion and 719 primary TKAs were included. No significant difference in the rate of PJI was found between the UKA to TKA conversion cohort (0.66%) and the primary TKA cohort (0.70%) (odds ratio [OR] 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.27, 4.46]; p = 0.91). However, UKA to TKA conversion was associated with a significantly higher likelihood of requiring augments (15.6% vs. 3.9%; OR 8.71, 95% CI [1.29, 58.80]; p = 0.03) and stems (36.6% vs. 1.7%; OR 45.83, 95% CI [9.53, 220.55]; p < 0.00001), indicating greater surgical complexity.
Conclusion: Based on current literature, UKA to TKA conversion is associated with a similar surgical site infection/PJI rate compared to primary TKA. UKA to TKA conversion procedures necessitated significantly more revision-specific components.
Level of evidence: Level III.
Keywords: TKA; conversion UKA; knee arthroplasty revision; unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA).
© 2025 The Author(s). Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy.
References
REFERENCES
-
- Citak M, Dersch K, Kamath AF, Haasper C, Gehrke T, Kendoff D. Common causes of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a single‐centre analysis of four hundred and seventy one cases. Int Orthop. 2014;38:961–965.
-
- Cross MB, Yi PY, Moric M, Sporer SM, Berger RA, Della Valle CJ. Revising an HTO or UKA to TKA: is it more like a primary TKA or a revision TKA? J Arthroplasty. 2014;29:229–231.
-
- Isaac SM, Barker KL, Danial IN, Beard DJ, Dodd CA, Murray DW. Does arthroplasty type influence knee joint proprioception? A longitudinal prospective study comparing total and unicompartmental arthroplasty. Knee. 2007;14:212–217.
-
- Järvenpää J, Kettunen J, Miettinen H, Kröger H. The clinical outcome of revision knee replacement after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty: 8‐17 years follow‐up study of 49 patients. Int Orthop. 2010;34:649–653.
-
- Kalbian IL, Tan TL, Rondon AJ, Bonaddio VA, Klement MR, Foltz C, et al. Reduced opioid requirements following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compared with total knee arthroplasty. Bone Jt J. 2019;101–B:22–27.
Publication types
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials
