Oxford partial knee replacement by microplasty instrumentation: Indian evidence

Mukesh Sancheti


Background: There is increasing evidence in support of unicondylar knee replacement (UKR) as a superior surgical modality in a select group of patients of osteoarthritis knee. Oxford knee is one type of UKR with fully congruent, mobile bearing designed to minimize wear. This prospective study describes 5-year results of partial medial compartment knee replacement in 92 Indian cases by microplasty instrumentation.

Methods: All 92 cases were operated by a single surgeon. Mean follow up was 5 years. In all cases oxford mobile bearing medial unicondylar knee prosthesis was implanted using minimally invasive surgical technique and the cases followed up.

Results: Mean oxford score at the end of 5 year was 43. Patient satisfaction index at the end of 5 year was 98%. Mean maximum flexion was 125 degrees. Incidence of revision was 1.9. No deep or superficial infections were encountered. Average hospital stay was 3 days.

Conclusions: There are variations in Indian patients as per size of implants, stay and similarities regarding less blood loss, improved oxford knee score, good range of motion, less morbidity, higher postoperative patient satisfaction and early getting back to work. Oxford partial knee replacement by microplasty instrumentation done in carefully selected patients with proper surgical technique gives excellent functional outcome and superior patient satisfaction.


Unicondylar knee replacement, Minimally invasive surgery, Total knee replacement, Osteoarthritis, Oxford knee score, American knee society score

Full Text:



RGI. Sample Registration System Statistical Report 2011. New Delhi: Office of Registrar General of India. 2013. Available at: https://www.censusindia. Accessed on 05 June 2020.

Silman AJ, Hochberg MC. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001. Epidemiolo Rheumat Diseas. 42-6.

Pal CP, Singh P, Chaturvedi S, Pruthi KK, Vij A, Epidemiology of knee osteoarthritis in India and related factors. Indian J Orthop. 2016;50:518-22.

Haq I, Murphy E, Dacre J. Osteoarthritis. Postgrad Med J. 2003;79:377-83.

Murray DW, Good fellow JW, O’Connor JJ. The Oxford unicompartmental arthroplasty: a ten year survival study. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 1998; 80-B:983-9.

Price AJ, Webb J, Topf H, et al; Oxford Hip and Knee Group. Rapid recovery after Oxford unicompart mental arthroplasty through a short incision. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:970-6.

Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 1998; 80-B:63-9.

Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop. 1985;248:13-14.

Wong D, Donna L, Connie M. Smiling face as anchor for pain intensity scales. Pai. 2001;89(2)295-7.

Noble PC, Scuderi GR, Brekke AC, Sikorskii A, Benjamin JB, Lonner JH, Chadha P, Daylamani DA, Scott WN, Bourne RB. Development of a new Knee Society scoring system. Clinic Orthopaed Relat Resear. 2012;470(1):20-32.

Luscombe KL, Lim J, Jones PW, White SH. Minimally invasive Oxford medial unicompart mental knee arthroplasty. Int Orthopaed. 2007;31(3): 321-4.

Liddle AD, Judge A, Pandit H, Murray DW. Determinants of revision and functional outcome following unicompartmental knee replacement. Osteoarthrit Cartil. 2014;22(9):1241-50.

Scott CE, Howie CR, MacDonald D, Biant LC. Predicting dissatisfaction following total knee replacement: a prospective study of 1217 patients. J Bon Join Surg (Brit). 2010;92(9):1253-8.

Campbell MK, Fiddian N, Fitzpatrick R, Grant AM, Gray A, Morris R, Murray D, Rowley D, Johnston L, MacLennan GS, McCormack K. The Knee Arthroplasty Trial (KAT): design features, baseline characteristics and two-year functional outcomes after alternative approaches to knee replacement.

Williams DP, Blakey CM, Hadfield SG, Murray DW, Price AJ, Field RE. Long-term trends in the Oxford knee score following total knee replacement. J Bon Join Surg. 2013;95(1):45-51.

Choong PF, Dowsey MM, Stoney JD. Does accurate anatomical alignment result in better function and quality of life? Comparing conventional and computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplas. 2009;24(4):560-9.

Ritter MA, Davis KE, Davis P, Farris A, Malinzak RA, Berend ME, Meding JB. Preoperative malalignment increases risk of failure after total knee arthroplasty. J Bon Join Surg. 2013;95(2):126-31.

Pandit HG, Campi S, Hamilton TW, Dada OD, Pollalis S, Jenkins C, et al. Five-year experience of cementless Oxford unicompart mental knee replacement. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthrosco. 2017;25(3):694-702.

Mohammad HR, Kennedy JA, Mellon SJ, Judge A, Dodd CA, Murray DW. Ten-year clinical and radiographic results of 1000 cementless Oxford uni compartmental knee replacements. Kne Surg, Sport Traumatol, Arthrosc. 2019:1-9.

Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM, Mahomed NN, Charron KD. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not?. Clinic Orthopaed Relat Resear. 2010;468(1):57-63.