title: Orthopaedic crossfire--can we justify unicondylar arthroplasty as a temporizing procedure? in the affirmative.
abstract: In 1972, unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) was introduced, along with total knee arthroplasty (TKA), as an option for managing gonarthrosis. Although the early clinical results with the first generation of implants were equivalent to those of total knee arthroplasty, little interest in UKA was sustained. If unicondylar arthroplasty is to realize a role in the management of degenerative arthritis, even as a temporizing procedure, the results must be predictable and reproducible. Patient satisfaction must be equivalent to or better than that of TKA. Finally, the conversion of UKA to TKA must be uncomplicated, avoiding complex reconstructive procedures and the use of revision implants. As documented in the literature, UKA achieves these goals. Therefore, we cannot only justify UKA as a temporizing procedure, but also as a definitive procedure with long-term results that are comparable to TKA for gonarthrosis.
authors.affiliation: Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute, Alexandria, Virginia 22306, USA. research@aori.org
authors.forename: Gerard A
authors.initials: GA
authors.lastname: Engh
mesh_terms: D001168:Arthritis / Q000601:surgery; D019645:Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D007719:Knee Joint; D012086:Reoperation; D016896:Treatment Outcome