Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 16, 2026
In Vitro Application of a Wireless Sensor in Flexion-Extension Gap Balance of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty
Published on: May 5, 2023
Comparison of outcomes after UKA in patients with and without chondrocalcinosis: a matched cohort study
V Kumar1, H G Pandit2, A D Liddle1
1Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS), University of Oxford, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Windmill Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.
Purpose:
Chondrocalcinosis can be associated with an inflammatory arthritis and aggressive joint destruction. There is uncertainty as to whether chondrocalcinosis represents a contraindication to unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). This study reports the outcome of a consecutive series of patients with chondrocalcinosis and medial compartment osteoarthritis treated with UKA matched to controls.
Methods:
Between 1998 and 2008, 88 patients with radiological chondrocalcinosis (R-CCK) and 67 patients with histological chondrocalcinosis (H-CCK) were treated for end-stage medial compartment arthritis with Oxford UKA. One-to-two matching was performed to controls, treated with UKA, but without evidence of chondrocalcinosis. Functional outcome and implant survival were assessed in each group.
Results:
The mean follow-up was 10 years. The mean Oxford Knee Score (OKS) at final follow-up was 43, 41 and 41 in H-CCK, R-CCK and control groups (change from baseline OKS was 21, 18 and 15, respectively). The change was significantly higher in H-CCK than in control but was not significantly different in R-CCK. Ten-year survival was 96 % in R-CCK, 86 % in H-CCK and 98 % in controls. Although the survival in H-CCK was significantly worse than in control, only one failure was due to disease progression.
Conclusion:
The presence of R-CCK does not influence functional outcome or survival following UKA. Pre-operative radiological evidence of CCK should not be considered to be a contraindication to UKA. H-CCK is associated with significantly improved clinical outcomes but also a higher revision rate compared with controls.
Level Of Evidence:
Case control study, Level III.
