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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 6/2018

Open Access 01-06-2018 | Knee

The impact of patient-specific instrumentation on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomised controlled study

Authors: Abtin Alvand, Tanvir Khan, Cathy Jenkins, Jonathan L. Rees, William F. Jackson, Christopher A. F. Dodd, David W. Murray, Andrew J. Price

Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 6/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) has been proposed as a means of improving surgical accuracy and ease of implantation during technically challenging procedures such as unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). The purpose of this prospective randomised controlled trial was to compare the accuracy of implantation and functional outcome of mobile-bearing medial UKAs implanted with and without PSI by experienced UKA surgeons.

Methods

Mobile-bearing medial UKAs were implanted in 43 patients using either PSI guides or conventional instrumentation. Intra-operative measurements, meniscal bearing size implanted, and post-operative radiographic analyses were performed to assess component positioning. Functional outcome was determined using the Oxford Knee Score (OKS).

Results

PSI guides could not be used in three cases due to concerns regarding accuracy and registration onto native anatomy, particularly on the tibial side. In general, similar component alignment and positioning was achieved using the two systems (n.s. for coronal/sagittal alignment and tibial coverage). The PSI group had greater tibial slope (p = 0.029). The control group had a higher number of optimum size meniscal bearing inserted (95 vs 52%; p = 0.001). There were no differences in OKS improvements (n.s).

Conclusion

Component positioning for the two groups was similar for the femur but less accurate on the tibial side using PSI, often with some unnecessarily deep resections of the tibial plateau. Although PSI was comparable to conventional instrumentation based on OKS improvements at 12 months, we continue to use conventional instrumentation for UKA at our institution until further improvements to the PSI guides can be demonstrated.

Level of evidence

Therapeutic, Level I.
Literature
1.
Ast MP, Nam D, Haas SB (2012) Patient-specific instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty: a review. Orthop Clin North Am 43:e17–e22CrossRefPubMed
2.
Baker P, Jameson S, Critchley R, Reed M, Gregg P, Deehan D (2013) Center and surgeon volume influence the revision rate following unicondylar knee replacement: an analysis of 23,400 medial cemented unicondylar knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95:702–709CrossRefPubMed
3.
Bali K, Walker P, Bruce W (2012) Custom-fit total knee arthroplasty: our initial experience in 32 knees. J Arthroplasty 27:1149–1154CrossRefPubMed
4.
Bell SW, Stoddard J, Bennett C, London NJ (2014) Accuracy and early outcomes in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty performed using patient specific instrumentation. Knee 21(Suppl 1):S33–S36CrossRefPubMed
5.
Bruni D, Iacono F, Russo A, Zaffagnini S, Marcheggiani Muccioli GM, Bignozzi S et al (2010) Minimally invasive unicompartmental knee replacement: retrospective clinical and radiographic evaluation of 83 patients. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:710–717CrossRefPubMed
6.
Chau R, Gulati A, Pandit H, Beard DJ, Price AJ, Dodd CA et al (2009) Tibial component overhang following unicompartmental knee replacement–Does it matter? Knee 16:310–313CrossRefPubMed
7.
Chauhan SK, Scott RG, Breidahl W, Beaver RJ (2004) Computer-assisted knee arthroplasty versus a conventional jig-based technique. A randomised, prospective trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86:372–377CrossRefPubMed
8.
9.
Dervin GF, Carruthers C, Feibel RJ, Giachino AA, Kim PR, Thurston PR (2011) Initial experience with the oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 26:192–197CrossRefPubMed
10.
Epinette JA, Brunschweiler B, Mertl P, Mole D, Cazenave A, French Society for H et al (2012) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty modes of failure: wear is not the main reason for failure: a multicentre study of 418 failed knees. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 98:S124–S130CrossRefPubMed
11.
Fitz W (2009) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with use of novel patient-specific resurfacing implants and personalized jigs. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(Suppl 1):69–76CrossRefPubMed
12.
Goodfellow J, O’Connor J, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2006) Unicompartmental arthroplasty with the Oxford knee. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 171–184
13.
Gulati A, Chau R, Simpson DJ, Dodd CA, Gill HS, Murray DW (2009) Influence of component alignment on outcome for unicompartmental knee replacement. Knee 16:196–199CrossRefPubMed
14.
Hamilton WG, Ammeen D, Engh CA Jr., Engh GA (2010) Learning curve with minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 25:735–740CrossRefPubMed
15.
Jaffry Z, Masjedi M, Clarke S, Harris S, Karia M, Andrews B et al (2014) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasties: robot vs. patient specific instrumentation. Knee 21:428–434CrossRefPubMed
16.
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
17.
Kerens B, Schotanus MGM, Boonen B, Kort NP (2015) No radiographic difference between patient-specific guiding and conventional Oxford UKA surgery. Knee Surg Sport Trans A 23:1324–1329CrossRef
18.
Koeck FX, Beckmann J, Luring C, Rath B, Grifka J, Basad E (2011) Evaluation of implant position and knee alignment after patient-specific unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee 18:294–299CrossRefPubMed
19.
Kotela A, Kotela I (2014) Patient-specific computed tomography based instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled study. Int Orthop 38:2099–2107CrossRefPubMed
20.
Krishnan SP, Dawood A, Richards R, Henckel J, Hart AJ (2012) A review of rapid prototyped surgical guides for patient-specific total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94:1457–1461CrossRefPubMed
21.
Liddle AD, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray DW (2016) Effect of surgical caseload on revision rate following total and unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 98:1–8CrossRefPubMed
22.
Lindstrand A, Stenstrom A, Ryd L, Toksvig-Larsen S (2000) The introduction period of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is critical: a clinical, clinical multicentered, and radiostereometric study of 251 Duracon unicompartmental knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 15:608–616CrossRefPubMed
23.
Lisowski LA, van den Bekerom MP, Pilot P, van Dijk CN, Lisowski AE (2011) Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: medium-term results of a minimally invasive surgical procedure. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:277–284CrossRefPubMed
24.
Murray DW, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, Pandit H, Beard DJ, Carr AJ et al (2007) The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89:1010–1014CrossRefPubMed
25.
Noble JW Jr, Moore CA, Liu N (2012) The value of patient-matched instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 27:153–155CrossRefPubMed
26.
Ollivier M, Parratte S, Lunebourg A, Viehweger E, Argenson JN (2016) The John Insall Award: no functional benefit after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty performed with patient-specific instrumentation: a randomized trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res 474:60–68CrossRefPubMed
27.
Ollivier M, Tribot-Laspiere Q, Amzallag J, Boisrenoult P, Pujol N, Beaufils P (2016) Abnormal rate of intraoperative and postoperative implant positioning outliers using “MRI-based patient-specific” compared to “computer assisted” instrumentation in total knee replacement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24:3441–3447CrossRefPubMed
28.
Pandit H, Hamilton TW, Jenkins C, Mellon SJ, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2015) The clinical outcome of minimally invasive Phase 3 Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a 15-year follow-up of 1000 UKAs. Bone Joint J 97(B):1493–1500CrossRefPubMed
29.
Price AJ, Svard U (2011) A second decade lifetable survival analysis of the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:174–179CrossRefPubMed
30.
Rees JL, Price AJ, Beard DJ, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2004) Minimally invasive Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: functional results at 1 year and the effect of surgical inexperience. Knee 11:363–367CrossRefPubMed
31.
Renson L, Poilvache P, Van den Wyngaert H (2014) Improved alignment and operating room efficiency with patient-specific instrumentation for TKA. Knee 21:1216–1220CrossRefPubMed
32.
Robertsson O, Knutson K, Lewold S, Lidgren L (2001) The routine of surgical management reduces failure after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83:45–49CrossRefPubMed
33.
Thienpont E, Bellemans J, Delport H, Van Overschelde P, Stuyts B, Brabants K et al (2013) Patient-specific instruments: industry’s innovation with a surgeon’s interest. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21:2227–2233CrossRefPubMed
34.
van Leeuwen JA, Rohrl SM (2017) Patient-specific positioning guides do not consistently achieve the planned implant position in UKA. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25:752–758CrossRefPubMed
35.
Vardi G, Strover AE (2004) Early complications of unicompartmental knee replacement: the Droitwich experience. Knee 11:389–394CrossRefPubMed
36.
Volpi P, Prospero E, Bait C, Cervellin M, Quaglia A, Redaelli A et al (2015) High accuracy in knee alignment and implant placement in unicompartmental medial knee replacement when using patient-specific instrumentation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:1292–1298CrossRefPubMed
37.
Watters TS, Mather RC III, Browne JA, Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr., Bolognesi MP (2011) Analysis of procedure-related costs and proposed benefits of using patient-specific approach in total knee arthroplasty. J Surg Orthop Adv 20:112–116PubMed
38.
Yan CH, Chiu KY, Ng FY, Chan PK, Fang CX (2015) Comparison between patient-specific instruments and conventional instruments and computer navigation in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:3637–3645CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The impact of patient-specific instrumentation on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomised controlled study
Authors
Abtin Alvand
Tanvir Khan
Cathy Jenkins
Jonathan L. Rees
William F. Jackson
Christopher A. F. Dodd
David W. Murray
Andrew J. Price
Publication date
01-06-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Issue 6/2018
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4677-5

Other articles of this Issue 6/2018

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 6/2018 Go to the issue

Knee

Tibial internal rotation negatively affects clinical outcomes in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

Knee

Pseudo-patella baja: a minor yet frequent complication of total knee arthroplasty

Knee

Large correction in opening wedge high tibial osteotomy with resultant joint-line obliquity induces excessive shear stress on the articular cartilage

Knee

Step-wise medial collateral ligament needle puncturing in extension leads to a safe and predictable reduction in medial compartment pressure during TKA

Knee

Lateral parapatellar and subvastus approaches are superior to the medial parapatellar approach in terms of soft tissue perfusion

Knee

High performance of α-defensin lateral flow assay (Synovasure) in the diagnosis of chronic knee prosthetic infections