Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is tibial cut navigation alone sufficient in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty? Continuous series of fifty nine procedures

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Our purpose was to assess medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with navigation alone for the tibial cut and limb alignment. We hypothesised that this technique could be used routinely in practice.

Methods

Outcome measures were tibial cut orientation and residual varus. Six-month post-operative radiographs of 59 knees were assessed.

Results

Tibial cut orientation was within 2° of planned in 70.2 and 76.3 % of knees in the coronal and sagittal planes, respectively (49.1 % in both), within 4° in 91.2 and 91.5 %, respectively (82.5 % in both). All coronal-plane errors were in varus. Excessive planed tibial slope was at risk of excessive varus of the tibial cut. The hip-knee-ankle angle was ≤179° in 81.4 % and the mechanical axis through Kennedy Zone 2 in 59.3 % of knees. Risk factors for inadequate varus were pre-operative hip-knee-ankle angle >176° and strictly articular varus.

Conclusions

Our results are not as good as previously reported with this technique, but taking into account the factors of failure identified, we could enhance the results.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chatellard R, Sauleau V, Colmar M et al (2013) Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: does tibial component position influence clinical outcomes and arthroplasty survival? Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 99(4 Suppl):S219–S225. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2013.03.004

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lootvoet L, Burton P, Himmer O et al (1997) A unicompartment knee prosthesis: the effect of the positioning of the tibial plate on the functional results. Acta Orthop Belg 63:94–101

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jenny J-Y, Boeri C (2003) Unicompartmental knee prosthesis implantation with a non-image-based navigation system: rationale, technique, case–control comparative study with a conventional instrumented implantation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 11:40–45. doi:10.1007/s00167-002-0333-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Weber P, Crispin A, Schmidutz F et al (2013) Improved accuracy in computer-assisted unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21:2453–2461. doi:10.1007/s00167-013-2370-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nair R, Tripathy G, Deysine GR (2014) Computer navigation systems in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 43:256–261

    Google Scholar 

  6. Perlick L, Bäthis H, Tingart M et al (2004) Minimally invasive unicompartmental knee replacement with a nonimage-based navigation system. Int Orthop 28:193–197. doi:10.1007/s00264-004-0549-y

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jenny J-Y, Müller PE, Weyer R et al (2006) Navigated minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 29:S117–S121

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.88B1.16266

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Jenny J-Y, Ciobanu E, Boeri C (2007) The rationale for navigated minimally invasive unicompartmental knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 463:58–62. doi:10.1097/BLO.0b013e318126c077

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rosenberger RE, Fink C, Quirbach S et al (2008) The immediate effect of navigation on implant accuracy in primary mini-invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16:1133–1140. doi:10.1007/s00167-008-0618-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lim M-H, 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. doi:10.1007/s00167-008-0655-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Seon JK, Song EK, Park SJ et al (2009) Comparison of minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with or without a navigation system. J Arthroplasty 24:351–357. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2007.10.025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Jung KA, Kim SJ, Lee SC et al (2010) Accuracy of implantation during computer-assisted minimally invasive Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a comparison with a conventional instrumented technique. Knee 17:387–391. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2009.11.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Weber P, Utzschneider S, Sadoghi P et al (2012) Navigation in minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty has no advantage in comparison to a conventional minimally invasive implantation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132:281–288. doi:10.1007/s00402-011-1404-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Valenzuela GA, Jacobson NA, Geist DJ et al (2013) Implant and limb alignment outcomes for conventional and navigated unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 28:463–468. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2012.09.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Manzotti A, Cerveri P, Pullen C, Confalonieri N (2014) Computer-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using dedicated software versus a conventional technique. Int Orthop 38:457–463. doi:10.1007/s00264-013-2215-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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 36:2479–2483. doi:10.1007/s00264-012-1679-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Cartier P, Cheaib S (1987) Unicondylar knee arthroplasty. 2–10 years of follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty 2:157–162

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Vasso M, Del Regno C, D’Amelio A et al (2015) Minor varus alignment provides better results than neutral alignment in medial UKA. Knee 22:117–121. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2014.12.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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 

  22. Kennedy WR, White RP (1987) Unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee. Postoperative alignment and its influence on overall results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 221:278–285

    Google Scholar 

  23. Collier MB, Eickmann TH, Anbari KK, Engh GA (2007) Lateral tibiofemoral compartment narrowing after medial unicondylar arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 464:43–52. doi:10.1097/BLO.0b013e3181592589

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kim S-J, Bae J-H, Lim HC (2012) Factors affecting the postoperative limb alignment and clinical outcome after Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 27:1210–1215. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2011.12.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Saragaglia D, Cognault J, Refaie R et al (2015) 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. Int Orthop 39:1779–1784. doi:10.1007/s00264-015-2838-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Servien E, Fary C, Lustig S et al (2011) Tibial component rotation assessment using CT scan in medial and lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 97:272–275. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2010.11.002

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rennes University Hospital, 2 rue Henri Le Guilloux, 35033, Rennes Cedex 9, France

    Thomas Gicquel, Jean Christophe Lambotte, Jean Louis Polard, Mickael Ropars & Denis Huten

  2. Faculté de Médecine, University Rennes 1, 2 Avenue du Professeur Léon Bernard, 35043, Rennes Cedex, France

    Thomas Gicquel & Mickael Ropars

  3. M2S Laboratory, University Rennes 2—Ecole Normale Superieure Cachan, Avenue Robert Schuman, 35170, Bruz, France

    Mickael Ropars

Authors
  1. Thomas Gicquel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jean Christophe Lambotte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jean Louis Polard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mickael Ropars
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Denis Huten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Gicquel.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

J. Polard declared receiving a speaker honorarium and royalties from Zimmer, as well as being a paid consultant for Zimmer; he has also been a paid consultant for Medacta. D. Huten declared receiving royalties from Smith and Nephew. None of these declared potential conflicts of interest are directly related to this study. The other authors did not declare any conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gicquel, T., Lambotte, J.C., Polard, J.L. et al. Is tibial cut navigation alone sufficient in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty? Continuous series of fifty nine procedures. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 40, 2511–2518 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3241-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3241-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation