JOURNEY◊ II UK (Partial)
Unicompartmental Knee System
The JOURNEY II UK Unicompartmental Knee System is an implant system for partial knee replacement. It’s designed to restore your knee by replacing the damaged part of the joint, and it's made with an award-winning implant material.1
Partial knee replacement
In partial knee replacement, only one area of your knee joint is replaced. Typically, this is either the medial (inside) area or lateral (outside) area. Patients who have partial knee replacement often report better experiences than those having full replacement. In fact, partial knee replacement has been shown to provide:
- Less pain and a faster return to activities after surgery2-4
- A more natural-feeling performance and range of motion in the knee3,5-8
- Higher satisfaction with the results of the procedure4,9-12
JOURNEY II UK System
The JOURNEY II UK System has two main components:
- The femoral component fits on your femur (thigh bone)
- The tibial component fits in your tibia (shin bone) and includes:
- A metal stem with a tray
- A plastic insert that snaps into the tray, providing a smooth surface for contact with the femoral component
The components come in a range of sizes to match your anatomy. They can also be part of a robotics-assisted procedure with the CORI◊ Surgical System.
Unicompartmental = One Compartment of Your Knee
The “uni” in unicompartmental means “one” – as in unicycle (one wheel) and unicorn (one horn). The JOURNEY II UK System is called unicompartmental because it replaces only one part of your knee joint.
OXINIUM◊ Technology
The femoral component of the JOURNEY II UK System is made with OXINIUM Technology, an award-winning implant material.1 It’s engineered for strength and durability, and to provide patients with a long-lasting implant.13-18
Laboratory studies have compared OXINIUM implants to those made with cobalt chrome, another common material. OXINIUM implants have been shown to offer:13,14,16
- Stronger surface hardness
- Greater scratch-resistance
- Better wear performance over time
Talk to your doctor to learn more about the importance of materials in knee replacement implants.
◊ Trademark of Smith+Nephew. The information on this site is intended for US residents only © 2024 Smith+Nephew.
References
- 2005 ASM International Engineering Materials Achievement Award.
- Ho JC, Stitzlein RN, Green CJ, Stoner T and Froimson MI. Return to Sports Activity following UKA and TKA. J Knee Surg. 2016;29:254-259.
- Witjes, S. Gouttebarge V, Paul P, et al. Return to Sports and Physical Activity After Total and Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and MetaAnalysis. Sports Med. 2016;46:269–292.
- Noticewala MS et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty relieves pain and improves function more than total knee arthroplasty. The Journal of Arthroplasty. 2012;27(8) Suppl: 99-105.
- Zuiderbaan HA, van der List JP, Khamaisy S, et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty: Which type of artificial joint do patients forget? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25:681-686.
- Willis-Owen CA, Brust K, Alsop H, Miraldo M, Cobb JP. Unicondylar knee arthroplasty in the UK National Health Service: An analysis of candidacy, outcome and cost efficacy. The Knee. 2009;16:473–478.
- Fabre-Aubrespy M, Ollivier M, Pesenti S, Parratte S, Argenson, JN. Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty in Patients Older Than 75 Results in Better Clinical Outcomes and Similar Survivorship Compared to Total Knee Arthroplasty. A Matched Controlled Study. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31:2668-2671.
- Hauer G et al. Greater activity, better range of motion and higher quality of life following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a comparative case–control study. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery. 2020;140:231-7.
- Kim MS, Koh IJ, Choi YJ, Lee JY, In Y. Differences in Patient-Reported Outcomes Between Unicompartmental and Total Knee Arthroplasties: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32:1453-1459.
- Jansen K et al. Satisfaction and functional outcomes in unicompartmental compared with total knee arthroplasty. JBJS Open. 2020;5(3):e20.
- McAllister CM. The Role of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Versus Total Knee Arthroplasty in Providing Maximal Performance and Satisfaction. J Knee Surg. 2008;21:286–292.
- Von Keudell A, Sodha S, Collins J, Minas T, Fitz W, Gomoll AH. Patient satisfaction after primary total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: An age-dependent analysis. The Knee. 2014;21:180–184.
- Sheth NP, Lementowski P, Hunter G, Garino JP. Clinical applications of oxidized zirconium. J Surg Orthop Adv. 2008;17(1):17-26.
- Long M, Riester L, Hunter G. Nano-hardness Measurements of Oxidized Zr-2.5Nb and Various Orthopaedic Materials. 24th Annual Meeting of the Society for Biomaterials. April 22-26, 1998.
- Lee JK, Maruthainar K, Wardle N, Haddad F, Blunn GW. Increased force simulator wear testing of a zirconium oxide total knee arthroplasty. Knee. 2009;16(4):269-274.
- Papannagari R, Hines G, Sprague J. Long-term Wear Performance of an Advanced Bearing Technology for TKA. Poster presented at: ORS 2011 Annual Meeting.
- Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) 2022. Hip, Knee & Shoulder Arthroplasty Annual Report.
- Civinini R, Carulli C, Matassi F, Lepri AC, Sirleo L, Innocenti M. The Survival of Total Knee Arthroplasty: Current Data from Registries on Tribology: Review Article. HSS J. 2017 Feb;13(1):28-31.