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 2/2014

01-02-2014 | Original Paper

Computer-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using dedicated software versus a conventional technique

Authors: Alfonso Manzotti, Pietro Cerveri, Chris Pullen, Norberto Confalonieri

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 2/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to retrospectively compare the results of two matched-paired groups of patients who had undergone a medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) performed using either a conventional or a non-image-guided navigation technique specifically designed for unicompartmental prosthesis implantation.

Methods

Thirty-one patients with isolated medial-compartment knee arthritis who underwent an isolated navigated UKA were included in the study (group A) and matched with patients who had undergone a conventional medial UKA (group B). The same inclusion criteria were used for both groups. At a minimum of six months, all patients were clinically assessed using the Knee Society Score (KSS) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) index. Radiographically, the frontal-femoral-component angle, the frontal-tibial-component angle, the hip-knee-ankle angle and the sagittal orientation of components (slopes) were evaluated. Complications related to the implantation technique, length of hospital stay and surgical time were compared.

Results

At the latest follow-up, no statistically significant differences were seen in the KSS, function scores and WOMAC index between groups. Patients in group B had a statistically significant shorter mean surgical time. Tibial coronal and sagittal alignments were statistically better in the navigated group, with five cases of outliers in the conventional alignment technique group. Postoperative mechanical axis was statistically better aligned in the navigated group, with two cases of overcorrection from varus to valgus in group B. No differences in length of hospital stay or complications related to implantation technique were seen between groups.

Conclusion

This study shows that a specifically designed UKA-dedicated navigation system results in better implant alignment in UKA surgery. Whether this improved alignment results in better clinical results in the long term has yet to be proven.
Literature
1.
John J, Kuiper JH, May PC (2009) Age at follow-up and mechanical axis are good predictors of function after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. An analysis of patients over 17 years follow-up. Acta Orthop Belg 75(1):45–50PubMed
2.
Kennedy WR, White RP (1987) Unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee. Postoperative alignment and its influence on overall results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 221:278–85PubMed
3.
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 84:351–5PubMedCrossRef
4.
Sarangi PP, Karachalios T, Jackson M, Newman JH (1994) Patterns of failed internal unicompartmental knee prostheses, allowing persistence of undercorrection. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 80:217–22PubMed
5.
Voss F, Sheinkop MB, Galante JO, Barden RM, Rosenberg AG (1995) Miller-Galante unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at 2- to 5-year follow-up evaluations. J Arthroplasty 10:764–71PubMedCrossRef
6.
Hernigou P, Deschamps G (2004) Alignment influences wear in the knee after medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 423:161–5PubMedCrossRef
7.
Hernigou P, Deschamps G (2004) Posterior slope of the tibial implant and the outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86:506–11PubMed
8.
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 14:280–3PubMedCrossRef
9.
10.
Zamora LA, Humphreys KJ, Watt AM, Forel D, Cameron AL (2013) Systematic review of computer-navigated total knee arthroplasty. ANZ J Surg 83:22–30PubMedCrossRef
11.
Nakano N, Matsumoto T, Ishida K, Tsumura N, Kuroda R, Kurosaka M (2013) Long-term subjective outcomes of computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 37:1911–5PubMedCrossRef
12.
Yaffe M, Chan P, Goyal N, Luo M, Cayo M, Stulberg SD (2013) Computer-assisted versus manual TKA: no difference in clinical or functional outcomes at 5-year follow-up. Orthopedics 36:e627–32PubMedCrossRef
13.
Jenny JY, Boeri C (2002) Accuracy of implantation of a unicompartmental total knee arthroplasty with 2 different instrumentations: a case-controlled comparative study. J Arthroplasty 17:1016–20PubMedCrossRef
14.
Keene G, Simpson D, Kalairajah Y (2006) Limb alignment in computer-assisted minimally-invasive unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88:44–8PubMedCrossRef
15.
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 17:341–6PubMedCrossRef
16.
Perlick L, Bathis H, Tingart M, et al. (2004) Minimally invasive unicompartmental knee replacement with a nonimage-based navigation system 28:193–71
17.
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 23. [Epub ahead of print]
18.
Valenzuela GA, Jacobson NA, Geist DJ, Valenzuela RG, Teitge RA (2013) Implant and limb alignment outcomes for conventional and navigated unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 28:463–8PubMedCrossRef
19.
Ahlbäck S (1968) Osteoarthrosis of the knee. A radiographic investigation. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh) 277:7–72
20.
Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1998) Rationale of the Knee Society Clinical Rating System. Clin Orthop 248:13–14
21.
Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW (1988) Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip and knee. J Rheumatol 15:1833–1840PubMed
22.
Manzotti A, Confalonieri N, Pullen C (2007) Unicompartmental versus computer-assisted total knee replacement for medial compartment knee arthritis: a matched paired study. Int Orthop 31:315–9PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
23.
Confalonieri N, Manzotti A, Pullen C (2007) Navigated shorter incision or smaller implant in knee arthritis? Clin Orthop Relat Res 463:63–7PubMed
24.
Berger RA, Meneghini RM, Jacobs JJ, Skeinkop MB, Della Valle CJ, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO (2005) Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a follow-up of ten-years follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg 87A:999–1006CrossRef
25.
Newman JH, Ackroyd CE, Shah NA (2001) Unicompartmental or total knee replacement ? J Bone Joint Surg 80B:862–865
26.
Newman J, Pydisetty RV, Ackroyd C (2009) Unicompartmental or total knee replacement: the 15-year results of a prospective randomised controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91:52–7PubMedCrossRef
27.
Willis-Owen CA, Brust K, Alsop H, Miraldo M, Cobb JP (2009) Unicondylar knee arthroplasty in the UK National Health Service: an analysis of candidacy, outcome and cost efficacy. Knee 16:473–8PubMedCrossRef
28.
Prime MS, Palmer J, Khan WS (2011) The National Joint Registry of England and Wales. Orthopedics
29.
30.
Markel DC, Sutton K (2005) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: trouble shooting implant positioning and technical failures. J Knee Surg 18:96–101PubMedCrossRef
31.
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 83:45–9PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Computer-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using dedicated software versus a conventional technique
Authors
Alfonso Manzotti
Pietro Cerveri
Chris Pullen
Norberto Confalonieri
Publication date
01-02-2014
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
International Orthopaedics / Issue 2/2014
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-2215-8

Other articles of this Issue 2/2014

International Orthopaedics 2/2014 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Total knee arthroplasty of the stiff knee: three hundred and four cases

Original Paper

Improved kinematics of total knee replacement following partially navigated modified gap-balancing technique

Review Article

Lateral unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA): Contemporary indications, surgical technique, and results

Review Article

Non-continuous versus continuous wound drainage after total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis

Original Paper

Total knee arthroplasty in patients with hypersensitivity to metals

Original Paper

Does computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty improve the overall component position and patient function?