Top

European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology

Published in:

01-01-2016 | Original Article • KNEE - ARTHROPLASTY

Tibial baseplate positioning in robotic-assisted and conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Authors: Katherine P. MacCallum, Jonathan R. Danoff, Jeffrey A. Geller

Published in: European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology | Issue 1/2016

Abstract

This study compared tibial baseplate alignment (TBA) between robotic-arm-assisted (RAA) and conventional (CONV) unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKAs). We hypothesized that RAA would increase the percentage of implants within a predetermined safe zone (SZ). We identified 177 CONV and 87 RAA UKAs through our center’s patient registry. Two individuals reviewed postoperative knee radiographs and determined TBA. Coronal baseplate positioning was more accurate (i.e., within the SZ) for RAA (2.6° ± 1.5° vs. 3.9° ± 2.4°, p < 0. 0001). Conversely, sagittal alignment was more accurate for CONV (4.9° ± 2.8° vs. 2.4° ± 1.6°, p < 0.0001). RAA was more precise in both planes (p < 0.0001). There was no difference in the percentage of implants within the SZ between the two groups (p = 1.0).

Newman JH, Ackroyd CE, Shah NA (1998) Unicompartmental or total knee replacement? Five-year results of a prospective, randomised trial of 102 osteoarthritic knees with unicompartmental arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80(5):862–865PubMedCrossRef

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(1):52–57. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.91B1.20899 PubMedCrossRef

Berger RA, Meneghini RM, Jacobs JJ, Sheinkop MB, Della Valle CJ, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO (2005) Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum of ten years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(5):999–1006. doi:10.2106/JBJS.C.00568 PubMedCrossRef

Argenson JN, Chevrol-Benkeddache Y, Aubaniac JM (2002) Modern unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cement: a three to ten-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-A(12):2235–2239PubMed

Chatellard R, Sauleau V, Colmar M, Robert H, Raynaud G, Brilhault J, Societe d’Orthopedie et de Traumatologie de lO (2013) Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: does tibial component position influence clinical outcomes and arthroplasty survival? OTSR 99(4 Suppl):S219–S225. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2013.03.004 PubMed

Collier MB, Eickmann TH, Sukezaki F, McAuley JP, Engh GA (2006) Patient, implant, and alignment factors associated with revision of medial compartment unicondylar arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 21(6 Suppl 2):108–115. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2006.04.012 CrossRef

Hernigou P, Deschamps G (2004) Posterior slope of the tibial implant and the outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A(3):506–511PubMed

Kerens B, Schotanus MG, Boonen B, Kort NP (2014) No radiographic difference between patient-specific guiding and conventional Oxford UKA surgery. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. doi:10.1007/s00167-014-2849-09 PubMed

Yoo JH, Chang CB, Shin KS, Seong SC, Kim TK (2008) Anatomical references to assess the posterior tibial slope in total knee arthroplasty: a comparison of 5 anatomical axes. J Arthroplast 23(4):586–592CrossRef

10.

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(11):2453–2461PubMedCrossRef

11.

van Strien T, Kaptein B, van Erkel A, Valstar E, Nelissen R (2009) Computer assisted versus conventional cemented total knee prostheses alignment accuracy and micromotion of the tibial component. Int Orthop 33(5):1255–1261PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

12.

Squire MW, Callaghan JJ, Goetz DD, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC (1999) Unicompartmental knee replacement. A minimum 15 year followup study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 367:61–72PubMed

13.

Steele RG, Hutabarat S, Evans RL, Ackroyd CE, Newman JH (2006) Survivorship of the St Georg Sled medial unicompartmental knee replacement beyond ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88(9):1164–1168. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.88B9.18044 PubMedCrossRef

14.

Foran JR, Brown NM, Della Valle CJ, Berger RA, Galante JO (2013) Long-term survivorship and failure modes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(1):102–108. doi:10.1007/s11999-012-2517-y PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

15.

Saragaglia D, Picard F, Refaie R (2012) Navigation of the tibial plateau alone appears to be sufficient in computer-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 36(12):2479–2483PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

16.

Borus T, Thornhill T (2008) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 16(1):9–18PubMed

17.

Sawatari T, Tsumura H, Iesaka K, Furushiro Y, Torisu T (2005) Three-dimensional finite element analysis of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty–the influence of tibial component inclination. J Orthop Res 23(3):549–554. doi:10.1016/j.orthres.2004.06.00717 PubMedCrossRef

18.

Nunley RM, Nam D, Johnson SR, Barnes CL (2014) Extreme variability in posterior slope of the proximal tibia: measurements on 2395 CT scans of patients undergoing UKA? J Arthroplast 29(8):1677–1680. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2014.03.024 CrossRef

19.

Valenzuela GA, Jacobson NA, Geist DJ, Valenzuela RG, Teitge RA (2013) Implant and limb alignment outcomes for conventional and navigated unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 28(3):463–468. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2012.09.00119 CrossRef

20.

Cossey AJ, Spriggins AJ (2005) The use of computer-assisted surgical navigation to prevent malalignment in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 20(1):29–34. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2004.10.012 CrossRef

21.

Goradia VK (2014) Computer-assisted and robotic surgery in orthopedics: where we are in 2014. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 22(4):202–205. doi:10.1097/JSA.0000000000000047 CrossRef

22.

Bellemans J, Vandenneucker H, Vanlauwe J (2007) Robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 464:111–116. doi:10.1097/BLO.0b013e318126c0c022 PubMed

23.

Conditt MA, Roche MW (2009) Minimally invasive robotic-arm-guided unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(Suppl 1):63–68. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.01372 PubMedCrossRef

24.

Gothesen O, Slover J, Havelin L, Askildsen JE, Malchau H, Furnes O (2013) An economic model to evaluate cost-effectiveness of computer assisted knee replacement surgery in Norway. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 14:202. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-14-202 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Title: Tibial baseplate positioning in robotic-assisted and conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty
Authors: Katherine P. MacCallum
Jonathan R. Danoff
Jeffrey A. Geller
Publication date: 01-01-2016
Publisher: Springer Paris
Published in: European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology / Issue 1/2016
Print ISSN: 1633-8065
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1068
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-015-1708-0

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Tibial baseplate positioning in robotic-assisted and conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

When and how to operate on spondylodiscitis: a report of 13 patients

The innovative viscoelastic CP ESP cervical disk prosthesis with six degrees of freedom: biomechanical concepts, development program and preliminary clinical experience

Medical morbidities in people following hip and knee arthroplasty: data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative

The effect of amputation level and age on outcome: an analysis of 135 amputees

Porous tantalum in spinal surgery: an overview

Clinical comparison of postoperative results of balloon kyphoplasty (BKP) versus radiofrequency-targeted vertebral augmentation (RF-TVA): a prospective clinical study