Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Orthopaedics
Published in: International Orthopaedics 2/2017

01-02-2017 | Original Paper

Computerised navigation of unicondylar knee prostheses: from primary implantation to revision to total knee arthroplasty

Authors: Dominique Saragaglia, Benoit Marques Da Silva, Pierrick Dijoux, Jérémy Cognault, Julia Gaillot, Régis Pailhé

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 2/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Aim

Computerized navigation of unicondylar knee arthroplasties (UKA) is not a widespread technique. The lifespan of a UKA depends on the quality of its implantation. We know that overcorrection leads to a rapid extension of the osteoarthritis to the opposite side of the knee and undercorrection to a rapid loosening or wear of the prosthesis. Because of these difficulties and following a long experience with navigation of total knee arthroplasties (TKA) and osteotomies around the knee, we began using navigation for revisions to TKA in 2003 and for UKAs in 2008. The aim of this work is to present, firstly, the axial alignment of 79 medial and 19 lateral computer-assisted UKAs and, secondly, the axial alignment of 23 computer-assisted UKA revisions to TKA.

Methods

In all the cases we used the Orthopilot® device (BBraun-Aesculap, Tuttlingen, Germany), which is a non image-based navigation system.

Results

For medial prostheses, the main objective was to obtain a post-operative HKA angle of 177° ± 2°, i.e. an under correction of 1–5°. This objective was met in 88.5 % of the cases. For lateral prostheses, the main objective was to achieve a post-operative HKA angle of 183° ± 2°, i.e. also an under correction of 1–5°. This objective was met in 84 % of the cases (3 cases at 186° and no cases of over correction). Regarding UKA revisions, the main objective was to ensure an HKA angle of 180° ± 3°. This was met in 92.4 % of the cases.

Conclusion

As for TKA and osteotomies, computerized navigation of UKAs and UKA revisions allows the pre-operative goal to be met easily.
Literature
1.
Borus T, Thornhill T (2007) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 15:9–18
2.
Marmor L (1982) The Marmor knee replacement. Orthop Clin North Am 13:55–64PubMed
3.
4.
Saragaglia D, Picard F, Chaussard C, Montbarbon E, Leitner F, Cinquin P (2001) Mise en place des prothèses totales du genou assistée par ordinateur : comparaison avec la technique conventionnelle. A propos d’une étude prospective randomisée de 50 cas. Rev Chir Orthop 87:18–28PubMed
5.
Jenny JY, Boeri C (2001) Implantation d’une prothèse totale de genou assistée par ordinateur. Etude comparative cas-témoin avec une instrumentation traditionnelle. Rev Chir Orthop 87:645–652PubMed
6.
Saragaglia D, Chaussard C, Rubens-Duval B (2006) Navigation as a predictor of soft tissue release during 90 cases of computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Orthopaedics 29(10 Suppl):S137–S138
7.
Jenny JY, Boeri C (2003) Unicompartmental knee prosthesis implantation with a non-imaged-based navigation system : rationale, technique, case-control comparative study with a conventional instrumented implantation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 11:40–45CrossRefPubMed
8.
Perlick L, Bäthis H, Tingart M, Perlick C, Lüring C, Grifka J (2004) Minimally invasive unicompartmental knee replacement with a non-image-based navigation system. Int Orthop 28:193–197CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Cossey AJ, Spriggins J (2005) The use of computer-assisted surgical navigation to prevent malalignment in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 20:29–34CrossRefPubMed
10.
Rosenberger RE, Fink C, Quirbach S, Attal R, Tecklenburg K, Hoser C (2008) The immediate effect of navigation on implant accuracy in primary mini-invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16:1133–1140CrossRefPubMed
11.
Jenny JY (2008) Navigated unicompartmental knee replacement. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 16:103–107CrossRef
12.
Ayach A, Plaweski S, Saragaglia D (2009) Computer-assisted uni knee arthroplasty for genu varum deformity. Results of axial correction in a case-control study of 40 cases. In the 9th annual meeting of CAOS-International proceedings. WingSpan Press, Livermore, pp 4–7
13.
Jung KA, Kim SJ, Lee SC, Hwang SH, Ahn NK (2010) Accuracy of implantation during computer-assisted minimally invasive Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a comparison with a conventional instrumented technique. Knee 17:387–391CrossRefPubMed
14.
Weber P, Crispin A, Schmidutz F, Utzschneider S, Pietschmann MF, Jansson V, Müller PE (2013) Improved accuracy in computer-assisted unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21:2453–2461. doi:10.​1007/​s00167-013-2370-x CrossRefPubMed
15.
16.
Saragaglia D, Bonnin M, Dejour D, Deschamps G, Chol C, Chabert B, Refaie R, the French Society of Hip and Knee (2013) Results of a French multicentre retrospective experience with four hundred and eighteen failed unicondylar knee arthroplasties. Int Orthop 37:1273–1278. doi:10.​1007/​s00264-013-1915-4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Saragaglia D (2007) Computer-assisted implantation of a total knee prosthesis without pre-operative imaging: the kinematic model. In “Navigation and MIS in orthopaedic surgery” under the direction of Stiehl, Konermann, Haaker, Di Gioia. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 88–94
18.
Hernigou P, Deschamps G (2004) Alignment influences wear in the knee after medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 423:161–165CrossRef
19.
Saragaglia D, Roberts J (2005) Navigated osteotomies around the knee in 170 patients with osteoarthritis secondary to genu varum. Orthopaedics 28(Suppl 10):S1269–S1274
20.
Ramadier JO, Buard JE, Lortat-Jacob A et al (1982) Mesure radiologique des déformations frontales du genou. Procédé du profil vrai radiologique. Rev Chir Orthop 68:75–78PubMed
21.
Hernigou P, Deschamps G (1996) Prothèses unicompartimentales du genou. Rev Chir Orthop 82(Suppl 1):23–60
22.
Scott RD (2006) Three decades of experience with unicompartmental arthroplasty: mistakes made and lessons learned. Orthopaedics 29:829–831
23.
Jenny JY, Boeri C (2002) Accuracy of implantation of a unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with 2 different instrumentations: a case-controlled comparative study. J Arthroplasty 17:1016–1020CrossRefPubMed
24.
Larsson SE, Larsson S, Lundkvist S (1988) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 232:174–181
25.
Ridgeway SR, McAuley JP, Ammeen DJ, Engh GA (2002) The effect of alignment of the knee on the outcome of unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84:351–355CrossRefPubMed
26.
Seon JK, Song EK, Park SJ, Yoon TR, Lee KB, Jung ST (2009) Comparison of minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with or without a navigation system. J Arthroplasty 24:351–357CrossRefPubMed
27.
Lim MH, Tallay A, Bartlett J (2009) Comparative study of the use of computer assisted navigation system for axial correction in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17:341–346CrossRefPubMed
28.
29.
Mercier N, Wimsey S, Saragaglia D (2010) Long-term clinical results of the Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 34:1137–1143CrossRefPubMed
30.
Chatain F, Denjean S, Delalande JL, Chavane H, Bejui-Hugues J, Guyen O (2012) Computer-navigated revision total knee arthroplasty for failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 98:720–727CrossRefPubMed
31.
32.
Saragaglia D, Cognault J, Refaie R, Rubens-Duval B, Mader R, Rouchy RC, Plaweski S, Pailhé R (2015) Computer navigation for revision of unicompartmental knee replacements to total knee replacements: the results of a case–control study of forty six knees comparing computer navigated and conventional surgery. Int Orthop 39(9):1779–1784. doi:10.​1007/​s00264-015-2838-z CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Computerised navigation of unicondylar knee prostheses: from primary implantation to revision to total knee arthroplasty
Authors
Dominique Saragaglia
Benoit Marques Da Silva
Pierrick Dijoux
Jérémy Cognault
Julia Gaillot
Régis Pailhé
Publication date
01-02-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
International Orthopaedics / Issue 2/2017
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3293-1

Other articles of this Issue 2/2017

International Orthopaedics 2/2017 Go to the issue

Review Article

Platelet-rich plasma for the treatment of bone defects: from pre-clinical rational to evidence in the clinical practice. A systematic review

Original Paper

Re-dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty for recurrent dislocation: a multicentre study

Original Paper

Topical administration of tranexamic acid in hip arthroplasty

Original Paper

Humeral shaft fractures: results of operative and non-operative treatment

Original Paper

Soft tissue restricts impingement-free mobility in total hip arthroplasty

Original Paper

Curtain osteophytes are one of the risk factors for the poor outcome of rotational acetabular osteotomy