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

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 7/2010

01-07-2010 | Knee

Sagittal flexion angle of the femoral component in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is it same for both medial and lateral UKAs?

Authors: Elcil Kaya Bicer, Elvire Servien, Sebastien Lustig, Guillaume Demey, Tarik Ait Si Selmi, Philippe Neyret

Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 7/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

The flexion of the femoral component in the sagittal plane in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) was analyzed radiographically in this study. Thirty medial and 30 lateral UKAs were included. The sagittal flexion angles were measured both relative to the posterior femoral cortex and midline sagittal distal femoral axis. Both of the measurement methods revealed that the femoral components were inserted in a significantly more flexed fashion in the medial UKA group. Neither preoperative nor postoperative tibial slope did have any significant effect on the sagittal flexion angle. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study demonstrating an angular difference in the sagittal flexion of the femoral components between medial and lateral UKAs.
Literature
1.
Argenson JN, Cheurol-Bernkeddache Y, Aubanial JN (2002) Modern unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cement: a three to ten year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84:2235–2240PubMed
2.
Berger RA, Nedeff DD, Barden RM, Sheinkop MM, Jacobs JJ, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO (1999) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Clinical experience at 6- to 10–year follow up. Clin Orthop Relat Res 367:50–60CrossRefPubMed
3.
Bert JM (1998) 10-year survivorship of metal-backed, unicompartmental arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 13:901–905CrossRefPubMed
4.
Campbell D, Johnson LJ, West SC (2006) Multiparameter quantitative computer assisted tomography assessment of unicompartmental knee arthroplasties. ANZ J Surg 76:782–787CrossRefPubMed
5.
Hernigou P, Deschamps G (2004) Posterior slope of the tibial implant and the outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 86A:506–511
6.
Insall J, Walker P (1976) Unicondylar knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 120:83–85PubMed
7.
Kort NP, van Raay JJ, Thomassen BJ (2007) Alignment of the femoral component in a mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study in 10 cadaver femora. Knee 14:280–283CrossRefPubMed
8.
Kozinn SC, Scott RD (1989) Unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 71:145–150PubMed
9.
Ma B, Long W, Rudan JF, Ellis RE (2006) Three-dimensional analysis of alignment error in using femoral intramedullary guides in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 21:271–278CrossRefPubMed
10.
Markel DC, Sutton K (2005) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Troubleshooting implant positioning and technical failures. J Knee Surg 18:96–101PubMed
11.
Marmor L (1988) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: 10–13 year follow up study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 226:14–20PubMed
12.
Marmor L (1988) Unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee with a minimum ten-year follow-up period. Clin Orthop Relat Res 228:171–177PubMed
13.
Matsuda S, Miura H, Nagamine R, Mawatari T, Tokunaga M, Nabeyama R, Iwamoto Y (2004) Anatomical analysis of the femoral condyle in normal and osteoarthritic knees. J Orthop Res 22:104–109CrossRefPubMed
14.
McAuley JP, Engh GA, Ammen DJ (2001) Revision of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 392:279–282CrossRefPubMed
15.
Müller PE, Pellengahr C, Witt M et al (2004) Influence of minimally invasive surgery on implant positioning and the functional outcome for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 19:296–301CrossRefPubMed
16.
Murray DW, Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ (1998) The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a ten-year survival study. J Bone Joint Surg 80B:983–989CrossRef
17.
Nuño N, Ahmed AM (2003) Three dimensional morphometry of the femoral condyles. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 18:924–932CrossRef
18.
Parratte S, Argenson JNA, Dumas J, Aubaniac JM (2007) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for avascular osteonecrosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 464:37–42PubMed
19.
Rosenberger RA, 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
20.
Scott RD (2006) Three decades of experience with unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: mistakes made and lessons learned. Orthopedics 29:829–831PubMed
21.
Servien E, Aitsiselmi T, Neyret P, Verdonk P (2007) How to select candidates for lateral unicompartmental prosthesis. Tech Knee Surg 6:51–59CrossRef
22.
Servien E, Verdonk PCM, Lustig S, Paillot JL, Kara AD, Neyret P (2008) Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for osteonecrosis or osteoarthritis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16:1038–1042CrossRefPubMed
23.
Shakespeare D, Ledger M, Kinzel V (2005) Accuracy of implantation of components in the Oxford knee using the minimally invasive approach. Knee 12:405–409CrossRefPubMed
24.
Stern SH, Becker MW, Insall JN (1993) Unicondylar knee arthroplasty: an evaluation of selection criteria. Clin Orthop Relat Res 286:143–148PubMed
25.
Tabor OB Jr, Tabor OB (1998) Unicompartmental arthroplasty: a long term follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 13:373–379CrossRefPubMed
26.
Thornhill TS (1986) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 205:121–131PubMed
Metadata
Title
Sagittal flexion angle of the femoral component in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is it same for both medial and lateral UKAs?
Authors
Elcil Kaya Bicer
Elvire Servien
Sebastien Lustig
Guillaume Demey
Tarik Ait Si Selmi
Philippe Neyret
Publication date
01-07-2010
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Issue 7/2010
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-010-1063-y

Other articles of this Issue 7/2010

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 7/2010 Go to the issue

Knee

The association between component malalignment and post-operative pain following navigation-assisted total knee arthroplasty: results of a cohort/nested case–control study

Shoulder

Influence of SLAP lesions on chondral lesions of the glenohumeral joint

Knee

Muscle torque in total knee arthroplasty: comparison of subvastus and midvastus approaches

Knee

Brucella melitensis infection in total knee arthroplasty: a case report

Knee

Effect of weight-bearing on the alignment after open wedge high tibial osteotomy

Knee

Can patients really do sport after TKA?