Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Superior femoral component alignment can be achieved with Oxford microplasty instrumentation after minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

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

Abstract

Purpose

Oxford microplasty (MP) instrumentation has been developed to facilitate the reproducible and consistent performance of minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (MI-UKA) operation. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and radiographic results of two groups of patients implanted using either a conventional instrumentation technique or an MP technique.

Methods

A prospective cohort study of 108 knees in 108 patients who underwent an MI-UKA procedure using either conventionally instrumented UKA (CI-UKA) (52 knees of 52 patients) or MP-assisted UKA (MP-UKA) (56 knees of 56 patients). The clinical assessment included the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), the Knee Society Score (KSS), a visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, and range of motion (ROM). Complications were also recorded.

Results

No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding OKS, KSS, VAS, and ROM. There were also no significant differences in terms of mechanical limb alignment and tibia implant alignment. However, the MP-UKA group showed significantly more accurate positioning of the femoral component than the CI-UKA group. Additionally, the MP-UKA group had more femoral prostheses implanted in the “satisfactory” range and fewer “outliers” than the CI-UKA group. No significant difference in complications was noted between the two groups.

Conclusion

This study suggested that compared with CI-UKA, MP-UKA provides significant improvements in increasing the accuracy of sagittal and coronal implantation of the femoral component and in reducing the numbers of outliers for femoral prosthetic alignment. It is advocated that the MP system should be considered when MI-UKA is performed.

Level of evidence

Therapeutic study, Level IV.

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. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A (1998) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Jt Surg Br 80-B:63–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Emerson RH Jr, Hansborough T, Reitman RD, Rosenfeldt W, Higgins LL (2002) Comparison of a mobile with a fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee implant. Clin Orthop Relat Res 404:62–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ewald FC (1989) The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:9–12

    Google Scholar 

  4. Faour-Martín O, Valverde-García JA, Martín-Ferrero MA, Vega-Castrillo A, de la Red Gallego MA, Suárez de Puga CC, Amigo-Liñares L (2013) Oxford phase 3 unicondylar knee arthroplasty through a minimally invasive approach: long-term results. Int Orthop 37(5):833–838

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Fisher DA, Watts M, Davis KE (2003) Implant position in knee surgery: a comparison of minimally invasive, open unicompartmental, and total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 18(7 Suppl 1):2–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gulati A, Weston-Simons S, Evans D, Jenkins C, Gray H, Dodd CA, Pandit H, Murray DW (2014) Radiographic evaluation of factors affecting bearing dislocation in the domed lateral Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement. Knee 21(6):1254–1257

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hernigou P, Deschamps G (2004) Alignment influences wear in the knee after medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 423:161–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Huang TW, Peng KT, Huang KC, Lee MS, Hsu RW (2014) Differences in component and limb alignment between computer-assisted and conventional surgery total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22(12):2954–2961

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kort NP, van Raay JJ, Cheung J, Jolink C, Deutman R (2007) Analysis of Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement using the minimally invasive technique in patients aged 60 and above: an independent prospective series. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15(11):1331–1334

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 14:280–283

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lim HC, Bae JH, Song SH, Kim SJ (2012) Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee replacement in Korean patients. J Bone Jt Surg Br 94(8):1071–1076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ma B, Long W, Rudan JF, Ellis RE (2006) Three-dimensional analysis of alignment error in using femoral intramedullary guides in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 21(2):271–278

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mayman DJ, Rudan J, Watson D, Ellis R (2004) Computer-enhanced insertion of the Oxford unicompartmental arthroplasty: a fluoroguide technique. Comput Aided Surg 9:81–85

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Murray DW, Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ (1998) The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a ten year survival study. J Bone Jt Surg Br 80:983–989

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Murray DW, Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ, Dodd CA (1999) Oxford unicompartmental knee: manual of the surgical technique. Biomet UK Ltd, Bridgend, pp 1–40

    Google Scholar 

  17. Pandit H, Jenkins C, Barker K, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2006) The Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement using a minimally-invasive approach. J Bone Jt Surg Br 88(1):54–60

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 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 

  19. Skowroński J, Jatskewych J, Długosz J, Skowroński R, Bielecki M (2005) The Oxford II medial unicompartmental knee replacement. A minimum 10-year follow-up study. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil 7(6):620–625

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Stulberg SD, Loan P, Sarin V (2002) Computer-assisted navigation in total knee replacement: results of an initial experience in thirty-five patients. J Bone Jt Surg Am 84:90–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Svärd VC, Price AJ (2001) Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a survival analysis of an independent series. J Bone Jt Surg Br 83:191–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tu Y, Xue H, Cai M, Ma T, Liu X, Xia Z (2014) Improvement of femoral component size prediction using a C-arm intensifier guide and our established algorithm in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a report from a Chinese population. Knee 21(2):435–438

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Vasso M, Del Regno C, D’Amelio A, Viggiano D, Corona K, Schiavone Panni A (2015) Minor varus alignment provides better results than neutral alignment in medial UKA. Knee 22(2):117–121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Yoshida K, Tada M, Yoshida H, Takei S, Fukuoka S, Nakamura H (2013) Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in Japan—clinical results in greater than one thousand cases over ten years. J Arthroplasty 28(9 Suppl):168–171

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81301566), Shanghai Municipal Public Health and Family Planning Commission (No. 2013040) and Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Commission (No. 134119b1400). The authors wish to thank Dr. David W. Murray, Professor of Orthopaedics at the Nuffield Orthopaedics Centre, Oxford University, for his contribution to technical guidance and manuscript preparation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, Yangpu District Central Hospital Affiliated to Tongji University School of Medicine, 450 Tengyue Road, Shanghai, China

    Yihui Tu, Huaming Xue, Tong Ma, Tao Wen, Tao Yang, Hui Zhang & Minwei Cai

Authors
  1. Yihui Tu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Huaming Xue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tong Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tao Wen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tao Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hui Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Minwei Cai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Huaming Xue.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tu, Y., Xue, H., Ma, T. et al. Superior femoral component alignment can be achieved with Oxford microplasty instrumentation after minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25, 729–735 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4173-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4173-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation