Challenges in Residual Bearing Removal: A Rare Case of Mobile Bearing Fracture in Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty with Literature Review

Abstract

Background: Mobile bearing fracture is a rare long-term complication of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), and relevant reports are sparse. Hence, its treatment options need further exploration.

Case Presentation: This study presents the case of fracture of a polyethylene insert that occurred 12 years after mobile bearing medial UKA in a 75-year-old overweight woman who then underwent surgical intervention at our institution. However, we encountered significant challenges in removing the fragments from the broken bearing, resulting in retention of the remaining one-third of the fragment. We solved this problem by replacing the fractured insert with thicker mobile bearing. During the 1-month postoperative follow-up, the patient achieved good range of motion and excellent satisfaction, with no reported complications and a Knee Society Score of 90. Additionally, we reviewed the literature on the treatment for mobile bearing fractures after UKA.

Conclusions: Bearing fracture is a rare cause of failure of mobile bearing UKA. This case highlights the challenges of UKA fracture bearing retrieval and underscores that mobile bearing replacement can be an effective intervention. The case we report shows that when removal of a residual meniscal bearing in a posterior dislocation is difficult to achieve, compromise may be an appropriate option because it does not cause additional complaints to the patient. This case emphasizes the importance of the surgeon having a thorough preoperative understanding of the location and potential pitfalls of fracture fragments in such situations.

Keywords

Bearing fracture / Case report / Mobile bearing / Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

References

[1] Johal S, Nakano N, Baxter M, Hujazi I, Pandit H, Khanduja V. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: the past, current controversies, and future perspectives. J Knee Surg. 2018; 31: 992–998.

[2] Alnachoukati OK, Barrington JW, Berend KR, Kolczun MC, Emerson RH, Lombardi AV, et al. Eight hundred twenty-five medial mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasties: the first 10-year US multi-center survival analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2018; 33: 677–683.

[3] Tille E, Beyer F, Auerbach K, Tinius M, Lützner J. Better short-term function after unicompartmental compared to total knee arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021; 22: 326.

[4] Hopper GP, Leach WJ. Participation in sporting activities following knee replacement: total versus unicompartmental. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008; 16: 973–979.

[5] Christ AB, Pearle AD, Mayman DJ, Haas SB. Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: state-of-the art and review of the literature. J Arthroplasty. 2018; 33: 1994–2001.

[6] Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM, Mahomed NN, Charron KD. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010; 468: 57–63.

[7] Wilson HA, Middleton R, Abram SGF, Smith S, Alvand A, Jackson WF, et al. Patient relevant outcomes of unicompartmental versus total knee replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2019; 364: 1352.

[8] Cao Z, Niu C, Gong C, Sun Y, Xie J, Song Y. Comparison of fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2019; 34: 3114–3123.e3113.

[9] Sun PF, Jia YH. Mobile bearing UKA compared to fixed bearing TKA: a randomized prospective study. Knee. 2012; 19: 103–106.

[10] Hiranaka T, Suda Y, Kamenaga T, Fujishiro T, Koide M, Saitoh A, et al. Bearing separation from the lateral wall of the tibial component is a risk of anterior dislocation of the mobile bearing in Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2022; 37: 942–947.

[11] Lim HC, Shon WY, Kim SJ, Bae JH. Oxford phase III meniscal bearing fracture: case report. Knee. 2014; 21: 340–342.

[12] Munjal A. Fracture and posterior dislocation of meniscal bearing insert in mobile bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a case report. Malays Orthop J. 2018; 12: 62–64.

[13] Ventura A, Borgo E, Legnani C. Arthroscopically-assisted retrieval of a fractured polyethylene Oxford knee meniscal bearing: a case report. J Int Med Res. 2023; 51: 3000605231182668.

[14] Kendrick BJ, Longino D, Pandit H, Svard U, Gill HS, Dodd CA, et al. Polyethylene wear in Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement: a retrieval study of 47 bearings. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010; 92: 367–373.

[15] Kendrick BJ, Simpson DJ, Kaptein BL, Valstar ER, Gill HS, Murray DW, et al. Polyethylene wear of mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee replacement at 20 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011; 93: 470–475.

[16] Vajapey SP, Alvarez PM, Chonko D. Bearing failure in a mobile bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: an uncommon presentation of an implant-specific complication. Art Ther. 2021; 3: 16.

[17] Tibrewal S, Pandit H, McLardy-Smith P, Tibrewal SB, Murray DW. Posterior dislocation of the Oxford knee meniscal bearing: a treatment option. J Orthop Traumatol. 2014; 15: 59–62.

[18] Mittal A, Meshram P, Kim WH, Kim TK. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, an enigma, and the ten enigmas of medial UKA. J Orthop Traumatol. 2020; 21: 15.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 The Author(s). Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.