Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Orthopaedics 9/2015

01-09-2015 | Original Paper

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

Authors: Dominique Saragaglia, Jérémy Cognault, Ramsay Refaie, Brice Rubens-Duval, Roch Mader, René Christopher Rouchy, Stephane Plaweski, Régis Pailhé

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 9/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The revision of unicompartmental knee replacements (UKRs) to total knee replacements (TKRs) using computer navigation is a little-known technique. The principal objective of this study was to analyse the radiological position of implants in revision of UKR to TKR comparing the results of surgery aided by computer navigation (CAS) with conventional surgery (CS). Our hypothesis was that computer navigation would improve the position of the implants.

Methods

This is a retrospective single surgeon series. Forty-six patients (46 knees) with an average age 73 ± eight years (53–93) between January 1995 and December 2014 were included. The two groups were made up of 23 patients each and are comparable in terms of age, sex, side of surgery, age of the UKR, cause of failure and HKA angle before surgery. All patients were reviewed by two independent observers.

Results

In the CAS group, the average hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle was 179.2 ± 2.2° (175-184°). The average medial tibial mechanical angle (TMA) was 88.4 ± 1.6° (84-90°) and the medial femoral mechanical angle (FMA) was 91 ± 2° (87- 94°). The tibial slope was 88.7 ± 1.1° (87-90°). In the CS group, the average HKA angle was 179.9 ± 1.9° (175-183°), the TMA was on average 89.1 ± 1.3° (87-93°) and the FMA was 90.6 ± 1.5° (87-93°). The tibial slope was 87.8 ± 4.9° (85-95°). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups on any of the radiological parameters studied.

Conclusions

Our radiological target of a post-operative HKA angle of 180 ± 3° was obtained in 87.5 % of cases in the CS group and 92.4 % of cases in the CAS group. This slight difference in favour of the computer-assisted group was not statistically significant, and we cannot therefore confirm our initial hypothesis, at least in the hands of an experienced surgeon. However, the quality of the results in the CAS group suggest that this technique could provide precious assistance to less experienced surgeons performing this surgery.
Literature
1.
go back to reference 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 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
2.
go back to reference Foong WS, Lo NN (2014) Rehabilitation outcomes following revision for failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Orthop 11:145–149CrossRefPubMed Foong WS, Lo NN (2014) Rehabilitation outcomes following revision for failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Orthop 11:145–149CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Hang JR, Stanford TE, Graves SE, Davidson DC, de Steiger RN, Miller LN (2010) Outcome of revision of unicompartmental knee replacement. Acta Orthop 81:95–98PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Hang JR, Stanford TE, Graves SE, Davidson DC, de Steiger RN, Miller LN (2010) Outcome of revision of unicompartmental knee replacement. Acta Orthop 81:95–98PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Jarvenpaa J, Kettunen J, Miettinen H, Kroger H (2010) The clinical outcome of revision knee replacement after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty: 8–17 years follow-up study of 49 patients. Int Orthop 34:649–653PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Jarvenpaa J, Kettunen J, Miettinen H, Kroger H (2010) The clinical outcome of revision knee replacement after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty: 8–17 years follow-up study of 49 patients. Int Orthop 34:649–653PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Jenny JY, Boeri C (2001) Computer-assisted implantation of a total knee arthroplasty: a case-controlled study in comparison with classical instrumentation. Rev Chir Orthop 87:645–652PubMed Jenny JY, Boeri C (2001) Computer-assisted implantation of a total knee arthroplasty: a case-controlled study in comparison with classical instrumentation. Rev Chir Orthop 87:645–652PubMed
6.
go back to reference Johnson S, Jones P, Newman JH (2007) The survivorship and results of total knee replacements converted from unicompartmental knee replacements. Knee 14:154–157CrossRefPubMed Johnson S, Jones P, Newman JH (2007) The survivorship and results of total knee replacements converted from unicompartmental knee replacements. Knee 14:154–157CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Jonas SC, Shah R, Mitra A, Deo SD (2014) 5-Year cost/benefit analysis of revision of failed unicompartmental knee replacements (UKRs); not “just” a primary total knee replacement (TKR). Knee 21:840–842CrossRefPubMed Jonas SC, Shah R, Mitra A, Deo SD (2014) 5-Year cost/benefit analysis of revision of failed unicompartmental knee replacements (UKRs); not “just” a primary total knee replacement (TKR). Knee 21:840–842CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Kerens B, Boonen B, Schotanus M, Kort N (2013) Patient-specific guide for revision of medial unicondylar knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: beneficial first results of a new operating technique performed on 10 patients. Acta Orthop 84:165–169PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Kerens B, Boonen B, Schotanus M, Kort N (2013) Patient-specific guide for revision of medial unicondylar knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: beneficial first results of a new operating technique performed on 10 patients. Acta Orthop 84:165–169PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Kerens B, Boonen B, Schotanus MG, Lacroix H, Emans PJ, Kort NP (2013) Revision from unicompartmental to total knee replacement: the clinical outcome depends on reason for revision. Bone Joint J 95-B:1204–1208CrossRefPubMed Kerens B, Boonen B, Schotanus MG, Lacroix H, Emans PJ, Kort NP (2013) Revision from unicompartmental to total knee replacement: the clinical outcome depends on reason for revision. Bone Joint J 95-B:1204–1208CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Khan Z, Nawaz SZ, Kahane S, Esler C, Chatterji U (2013) Conversion of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: the challenges and need for augments. Acta Orthop Belg 79:699–705PubMed Khan Z, Nawaz SZ, Kahane S, Esler C, Chatterji U (2013) Conversion of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: the challenges and need for augments. Acta Orthop Belg 79:699–705PubMed
11.
go back to reference Lewold S, Robertsson O, Knutson K, Lidgren L (1998) Revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: outcome in 1,135 cases from the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty study. Acta Orthop Scand 69:469–474CrossRefPubMed Lewold S, Robertsson O, Knutson K, Lidgren L (1998) Revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: outcome in 1,135 cases from the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty study. Acta Orthop Scand 69:469–474CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Pearse AJ, Hooper GJ, Rothwell A, Frampton C (2010) Survival and functional outcome after revision of a unicompartmental to a total knee replacement: the New Zealand National Joint Registry. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 92:508–512CrossRef Pearse AJ, Hooper GJ, Rothwell A, Frampton C (2010) Survival and functional outcome after revision of a unicompartmental to a total knee replacement: the New Zealand National Joint Registry. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 92:508–512CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Pearse AJ, Hooper GJ, Rothwell AG, Frampton C (2012) Osteotomy and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty converted to total knee arthroplasty: data from the New Zealand Joint Registry. J Arthroplasty 27:1827–1831CrossRefPubMed Pearse AJ, Hooper GJ, Rothwell AG, Frampton C (2012) Osteotomy and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty converted to total knee arthroplasty: data from the New Zealand Joint Registry. J Arthroplasty 27:1827–1831CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Pietschmann MF, Ficklscherer A, Wohlleb L, Schmidutz F, Jansson V, Muller PE (2014) UKA can be safely revised to primary knee arthroplasty by using an autologous bone plate from the proximal lateral tibia. J Arthroplasty 29:1991–1995CrossRefPubMed Pietschmann MF, Ficklscherer A, Wohlleb L, Schmidutz F, Jansson V, Muller PE (2014) UKA can be safely revised to primary knee arthroplasty by using an autologous bone plate from the proximal lateral tibia. J Arthroplasty 29:1991–1995CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Ramadier JO, Buard JE, Lortat-Jacob A, Benoit J (1982) Radiological assessment of knee deformity in the frontal plane (author’s transl). Rev Chir Orthop 68:75–78PubMed Ramadier JO, Buard JE, Lortat-Jacob A, Benoit J (1982) Radiological assessment of knee deformity in the frontal plane (author’s transl). Rev Chir Orthop 68:75–78PubMed
16.
go back to reference Rancourt MF, Kemp KA, Plamondon SM, Kim PR, Dervin GF (2012) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasties revised to total knee arthroplasties compared with primary total knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 27:106–110CrossRefPubMed Rancourt MF, Kemp KA, Plamondon SM, Kim PR, Dervin GF (2012) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasties revised to total knee arthroplasties compared with primary total knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 27:106–110CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Robb CA, Matharu GS, Baloch K, Pynsent PB (2013) Revision surgery for failed unicompartmental knee replacement: technical aspects and clinical outcome. Acta Orthop Belg 79:312–317PubMed Robb CA, Matharu GS, Baloch K, Pynsent PB (2013) Revision surgery for failed unicompartmental knee replacement: technical aspects and clinical outcome. Acta Orthop Belg 79:312–317PubMed
18.
go back to reference Saldanha KA, Keys GW, Svard UC, White SH, Rao C (2007) Revision of Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty—results of a multicentre study. Knee 14:275–279CrossRefPubMed Saldanha KA, Keys GW, Svard UC, White SH, Rao C (2007) Revision of Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty—results of a multicentre study. Knee 14:275–279CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Saragaglia D (2009) Prothèse totale du genou assistée par ordinateur: 12 ans d’expérience grenobloise. e-Mem Acad Chir 8(1):53–58 Saragaglia D (2009) Prothèse totale du genou assistée par ordinateur: 12 ans d’expérience grenobloise. e-Mem Acad Chir 8(1):53–58
20.
go back to reference Saragaglia D, Picard F, Chaussard C, Montbarbon E, Leitner F, Cinquin P (2001) Computer-assisted knee arthroplasty: comparison with a conventional procedure. Results of 50 cases in a prospective randomized study. Rev Chir Orthop 87:18–28PubMed Saragaglia D, Picard F, Chaussard C, Montbarbon E, Leitner F, Cinquin P (2001) Computer-assisted knee arthroplasty: comparison with a conventional procedure. Results of 50 cases in a prospective randomized study. Rev Chir Orthop 87:18–28PubMed
21.
go back to reference 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. Orthopedics 29:S137–S138PubMed 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. Orthopedics 29:S137–S138PubMed
22.
go back to reference Saragaglia D, Estour G, Nemer C, Colle PE (2009) Revision of 33 unicompartmental knee prostheses using total knee arthroplasty: strategy and results. Int Orthop 33:969–974PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Saragaglia D, Estour G, Nemer C, Colle PE (2009) Revision of 33 unicompartmental knee prostheses using total knee arthroplasty: strategy and results. Int Orthop 33:969–974PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Saragaglia D, Bonnin M, Dejour D, Deschamps G, Chol C, Chabert B, Refaie R, French Society of H, Knee (2013) Results of a French multicentre retrospective experience with four hundred and eighteen failed unicondylar knee arthroplasties. Int Orthop 37:1273–1278PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Saragaglia D, Bonnin M, Dejour D, Deschamps G, Chol C, Chabert B, Refaie R, French Society of H, Knee (2013) Results of a French multicentre retrospective experience with four hundred and eighteen failed unicondylar knee arthroplasties. Int Orthop 37:1273–1278PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Sierra RJ, Kassel CA, Wetters NG, Berend KR, Della Valle CJ, Lombardi AV (2013) Revision of unicompartmental arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: not always a slam dunk! J Arthroplasty 28:128–132CrossRefPubMed Sierra RJ, Kassel CA, Wetters NG, Berend KR, Della Valle CJ, Lombardi AV (2013) Revision of unicompartmental arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: not always a slam dunk! J Arthroplasty 28:128–132CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Wynn Jones H, Chan W, Harrison T, Smith TO, Masonda P, Walton NP (2012) Revision of medial Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement to a total knee replacement: similar to a primary? Knee 19:339–343CrossRefPubMed Wynn Jones H, Chan W, Harrison T, Smith TO, Masonda P, Walton NP (2012) Revision of medial Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement to a total knee replacement: similar to a primary? Knee 19:339–343CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
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
Authors
Dominique Saragaglia
Jérémy Cognault
Ramsay Refaie
Brice Rubens-Duval
Roch Mader
René Christopher Rouchy
Stephane Plaweski
Régis Pailhé
Publication date
01-09-2015
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
International Orthopaedics / Issue 9/2015
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2838-z

Other articles of this Issue 9/2015

International Orthopaedics 9/2015 Go to the issue