Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Superior alignment but no difference in clinical outcome after minimally invasive computer-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (MICA-UKA)

  • Knee
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

Variety of clinical trials have been published comparing the alignment of MICA-UKA with MI-UKA. However, to the best of our knowledge, no published study has showed whether radiological alignment by MICA-UKA has influence on the clinical results. The present study was conducted to compare the short-term results of MICA-UKA with MI-UKA. It was hypothesized that better alignment as well as clinical results was achieved by MICA-UKA as compared to MI-UKA.

Methods

The clinical and radiological results of 87 subjects who underwent primary UKA using either minimally invasive and computer-assisted technique (45 patients Group A) or minimally invasive technique (42 patients, Group B) were reported. Knee Society scores (KSSs), Knee Society functional scores (KSFSs), range of motion (ROM), and radiographic results were assessed and reported preoperatively and at 24-month follow-up. Total blood loss, operative time, and length of skin incision were compared.

Results

The accuracy of the implantations in relation to the coronal mechanical axis in Group A was significantly superior to that of Group B (P = 0.033). The femoral rotational profile revealed the prosthesis in Group A that was implanted with significantly less internal rotation than Group B (P = 0.025). Clinical results, with regard to ROMs and KSSs, as well as KSFSs were equally good in both the groups. The average blood loss in patients of Group A was significantly reduced as compared to patients of Group B. No significant difference was detected in terms of operative time or length of skin incision.

Conclusions

It is suggested that MICA-UKA improves the implant alignment without increasing clinical results versus MI-UKA. We advocate that computer navigation should be considered when minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is performed.

Level of evidence

Therapeutic study, Level II.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Confalonieri N, Manzotti A (2005) Mini-invasive computer assisted bi-unicompartimental knee replacement. Int J Med Robot 1:45–50

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fisher D, Almand J, Dalury D, Gonzales R, Watts M (2007) Minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a comparison of all-polyethylene and metal-backed tibial components. J Arthroplasty 22:310–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Fisher DA, Dalury DF, Adams MJ, Shipps MR, Davis K (2010) Unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty in the over 70 population. Orthopedics 33:668

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jenny JY, Müller PE, Weyer R, John M, Weber P, Ciobanu E, Schmitz A, Bacher T, Neumann W, Jansson V (2006) Navigated minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 29:117–121

    Google Scholar 

  5. 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 17:387–391

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Keene G, Simpson D, Kalairajah Y (2006) Limb alignment in computer-assisted minimally-invasive unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88:44–48

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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 17:341–346

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Morris MJ, Frye BM, Ekpo TE, Berend KR (2012) Unicompartmental knee replacement with new Oxford instruments. Oper Tech Orthop 22:189–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mullaji AB, Sharma A, Marawar S (2007) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: functional recovery and radiographic results with a minimally invasive technique. J Arthroplasty 22:7–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mullaji AB, Shetty GM, Kanna R (2011) Postoperative limb alignment and its determinants after minimally invasive Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 26:919–925

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Munk S, Dalsgaard J, Bjerggaard K, Andersen I, Hansen TB, Kehlet H (2012) Early recovery after fast-track Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. 35 patients with minimal invasive surgery. Acta Orthop 83:41–45

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Murphy TP, Brubaker SM, Mihalko WM, Saleh KJ, Mulhall KJ (2007) Review of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in younger patients. Semin Arthroplasty 18:162–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Nair R, Tripathy G, Deysine GR (2014) Computer navigation systems in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Am J Orthop 6:256–261

    Google Scholar 

  14. Noticewala MS, Geller JA, Lee JH, Macaulay W (2012) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty relieves pain and improves function more than total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 27:99–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pandit H, Jenkins C, Gill HS, Barker K, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2011) Minimally invasive Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee replacement: results of 1,000 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93:198–204

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pietsch M, Djahani O, Zweiger Ch, Plattner F, Radl R, Tschauner Ch, Hofmann S (2013) Custom-fit minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty: effect on blood loss and early clinical outcomes. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21(10):2234–2240

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rosenberger RE, 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 16:1133–1140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Schindler OS (2007) Minimally invasive surgery of the knee. J Perioper Pract 17:535–542

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Seon JK, Song EK, Park SJ, Yoon TR, Lee KB, Jung ST (2009) Comparison of minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with or without a navigation system. J Arthroplasty 24:351–357

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sgaglione NA, Chen E, Bert JM, Amendola A, Bugbee WD (2010) Current strategies for nonsurgical, arthroscopic, and minimally invasive surgical treatment of knee cartilage pathology. Instr Course Lect 59:157–180

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. van der Linden-van der Zwaag HM, Bos J, van der Heide HJ, Nelissen RG (2011) A computed tomography based study on rotational alignment accuracy of the femoral component in total knee arthroplasty using computer-assisted orthopaedic surgery. Int Orthop 35:845–850

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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):2453–2461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Yang KY, Wang MC, Yeo SJ, Lo NN (2003) Minimally invasive unicondylar versus total condylar knee arthroplasty-early results of a matched-pair comparison. Singapore Med J 44:559–562

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Zhang Z, Gu B, Zhu W, Zhu L, Li Q, Du Y (2014) Minimal invasive and computer-assisted total knee replacement compared with the minimal invasive technique: a prospective, randomized trial with short-term outcomes. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134(1):65–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Natural Science Foundation of China (81401770).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopedic Department, The Affiliated Taizhou People’s Hospital of Nantong University, Yingchun Road, Taizhou, 225300, Jiangsu, China

    Zhenxiang Zhang, Wei Zhu, Lixian Zhu & Yaqing Du

Authors
  1. Zhenxiang Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wei Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lixian Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yaqing Du
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wei Zhu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, Z., Zhu, W., Zhu, L. et al. Superior alignment but no difference in clinical outcome after minimally invasive computer-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (MICA-UKA). Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24, 3419–3424 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3456-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3456-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation