Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Custom Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 18, 2026
The Use of Mixed Reality in Custom-Made Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A First Case Report
Published on: August 4, 2022
Carlo Mannina1, Muhammad Hamza Ilyas1, Hahn Kang1
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Bioengineering Laboratory, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Background:
Custom unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) implants were developed to improve component fit and alignment compared to conventional off-the-shelf (OTS) implants. However, evidence supporting the clinical advantage of custom UKA remains limited. This study compared patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and complication rates following custom and OTS UKA.
Methods:
A single-institution database was queried for patients who underwent medial UKA. Patients who had at least two years of follow-up and completed preoperative and postoperative PROMs were included. A total of 623 patients met inclusion criteria, including 124 who received custom implants and 499 who received OTS implants. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Global Physical, PROMIS Global Mental, PROMIS Physical Function Short Form 10-a, and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Physical Function Short Forms were extracted. The change in (delta) scores and proportions of minimal clinically important difference achievement were evaluated. The 90-day complications and two-year revision rates were also assessed. There were no differences in baseline demographics or comorbidities between cohorts.
Results:
Patients who received custom and OTS UKA demonstrated comparable absolute PROM scores, delta scores, and rates of achieving minimal clinically important difference across all metrics (all P > 0.05). At 2-year follow-up, patients who received custom UKA had a higher rate of revision surgery compared to those who received OTS implants (8.9 versus 3.8%, P = 0.010). Aseptic loosening was more likely following custom UKA (4.8 versus 0.8%, P = 0.006). Other indications for revision, and all other assessed complications, were comparable between cohorts (all P > 0.05).
Conclusions:
Custom UKA implants were associated with a higher revision rate at 2-year follow-up and demonstrated no advantage over OTS implants in terms of PROMs. These findings suggest that the theoretical advantages of custom UKA may not translate to improved clinically meaningful outcomes compared to OTS UKA.
