Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bi-unicompartmental Knee Protheses

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Minimally Invasive Surgery in Orthopedics

Abstract

One of the most evolving fields in orthopedics is knee replacement surgery. The ultimate goal is to let the patients have the same function, activity level, and feedback of a normal knee. To obtain them, research focuses in developing more anatomical components and in a closest reproduction of native biomechanics; surgical techniques develop to obtain a limited invasiveness and the respect of the unaffected elements of the joint (tissue-sparing surgery). In particular, the maintaining of the anterior cruciate ligament and the obtaining of an anatomical coronal alignment result in a knee kinematic closer to the normal one. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has already showed excellent clinical results and survivorship in large series of patients. The benefits of UKA could be obtained even in bicompartmental osteoarthritis, when both the tibiofemoral compartments or one tibiofemoral and the patellofemoral one are involved. In these cases, the implant of a bi-UKA or a UKA+patellofemoral arthroplasty with an anatomical alignment permits a close restoration of knee kinematic with high functional results. Moreover, the use of small implants and the tissue-sparing philosophy permits a very limited bone loss and a reduced damage of muscular and capsular tissues, allowing for a faster recovery compared to total knee replacement.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 899.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 1,199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Flecher X, Parratte S, Aubaniac JM, Argenson JN. A 12–28-year follow-up study of closing wedge high tibial osteotomy. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;452:91–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pagnano MW, Clarke HD, Jacofsky DJ, Amendola A, Repicci JA. Surgical treatment of the middle-aged patient with arthritic knees. Instr Course Lect. 2005;54:251–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Naudie D, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH, Bourne TJ. The install award. Survivorship of the high tibial valgus osteotomy. A 10- to 22-year follow-up study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;367:18–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Schallberger A, Jacobi M, Wahl P. High tibial valgus osteotomy in unicompartmental medial osteoarthritis of the knee: a retrospective follow-up study over 13–21 years. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19:122–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Papachristou G, Plessas S, Sourlas J, Levidiotis C, Chronopoulos E, Papachristou C. Deterioration of long-term results following high tibial osteotomy in patients under 60 years of age. Int Orthop. 2006;30:403–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Ritter MA, Berend ME, Meding JB, Keating EM, Faris PM, Crites BM. Long-term follow-up of anatomic graduated components posterior cruciate-retaining total knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;388:51–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Koskinen E, Eskelinen A, Paavolainen P, Pulkkinen P, Remes V. Comparison of survival and cost-effectiveness between unicondylar arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty in patients with primary osteoarthritis: a follow-up study of 50,493 knee replacements from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop. 2008;79:499–507.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kim YH, Park JW, Kim JS, Kulkarni SS, Kim YH. Long-term clinical outcomes and survivorship of press-fit condylar sigma fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing total knee prostheses in the same patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(19):e168.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Laurencin CT, Zelicof SB, Scott RD, Ewald FC. Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in the same patient. A comparative study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991;273:151–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Brown NM, Sheth NP, Davis K, Berend ME, Lombardi AV, Berend KR, Della Valle CJ. Total knee arthroplasty has higher postoperative morbidity than unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a multicenter analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(8 Suppl):86–90. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2012.03.022.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Johnson AJ, Howell SM, Costa CR, Mont MA. The ACL in the arthritic knee: how often is it present and can preoperative tests predict its presence? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(1):181–8. doi:10.1007/s11999-012-2505-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gunston FH. Polycentric knee arthroplasty. Prosthetic simulation of normal knee movement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1971;53(2):272–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Marmor L. The modular knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1973;94:242–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Coventry MB. Two-part knee arthroplasty: evolution and present status. Clin Orthop. 1979;145:29–36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bellemans J. Bicruciate-substituting and bicruciate-replacing arthroplasty of the knee: technique and results. In: Scuderi GR, Tria Jr AJ, editors. The knee: a comprehensive review. Hackensack: World Scientific; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Buechel FF, Pappas MJ. Long-term survivorship analysis of cruciate-sparing versus cruciate-sacrificing knee prostheses using meniscal bearings. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;260:162–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Yoshioka Y, Siu D, Cooke TD. The anatomy and functional axes of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;69(6):873–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Moreland JR, Bassett LW, Hanker GJ. Radiographic analysis of the axial alignment of the lower extremity. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;69(5):745–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Paley D. Principles of deformity correction. Berlin: Springer; 2002.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  21. Bellemans J, Colyn W, Vandenneucker H, Victor J. The Chitranjan Ranawat award: is neutral mechanical alignment normal for all patients? The concept of constitutional varus. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:45–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Baker PN, van der Meulen JH, Lewsey J, Gregg PJ. The role of pain and function in determining patient satisfaction after total knee replacement. Data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2007;89-B:893–900. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.89B7.19091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM, Mahomed NN, Charron KD. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not? Clin Orthop. 2010;468:57–63. doi:10.1007/s11999-009-1119-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Romagnoli S, Verde F. L’allineamento coronale nelle protesi totali di ginocchio. Lo Scalpello. 2013;27:126–31. doi:10.1007/s11639-013-0036-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Romagnoli S, Verde F, Corbella M, Zacchetti S. The bi-unicompartmental knee prosthesis. In: Confalonieri N, Romagnoli S, editors. Small implants in knee reconstructions. Milan: Springer; 2013. p. 81–93.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Romagnoli S, Verde F. Le bimono con ricostruzione dell’LCA nel 50 enne. Acta Orthop Ital. 2011;1:115–22.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Romagnoli S, Marullo M, Massaro M, Rustemi E, D’Amario F, Corbella M. Bi-unicompartmental and combined uni plus patellofemoral replacement: indications and surgical technique. Joints. 2015;3(1):42–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Romagnoli S, Verde F, Corbella M, Zacchetti S. Bicompartmental prosthesis. In: Confalonieri N, Romagnoli S, editors. Small implants in knee reconstructions. Milan: Springer; 2013. p. 105–16.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Romagnoli S, Verde F, Bibbiani E. Protesi femoro-rotulea isolate e mono + FR. Minerva Ortop Traumatol. 2008;59 Suppl 1:5.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Argenson JN, Komistek RD, Aubaniac JM, Dennis DA, Northcut EJ, Anderson DT, Agostini S. In vivo determination of knee kinematics for subjects implanted with a unicompartmental arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17:1049–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Heyse TJ, El-Zayat BF, De Corte R, Scheys L, Chevalier Y, Fuchs-Winkelmann S, Labey L. Biomechanics of medial unicondylar in combination with patellofemoral knee arthroplasty. Knee. 2014;21 Suppl 1:S3–9. doi:10.1016/S0968-0160(14)50002-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Wünschel M, Lo J, Dilger T. Influence of bi-and tri-compartmental knee arthroplasty on the kinematics of the knee joint. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:29. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-12-29. 27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Banks SA, Fregly BJ, Boniforti F, Reinschmidt C, Romagnoli S. Comparing in vivo kinematics of unicondylar and bi-unicondylar knee replacement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2005;13(7):551–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Perry J, Burnfield JM. Gait analysis: normal and pathological function. 2nd ed. Thorofare: SLACK Incorporated; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Komnik I, Weiss S, Fantini Pagani CH, Potthast W. Motion analysis of patients after knee arthroplasty during activities of daily living. A systematic review. Gait Posture. 2015;41(2):370–7. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2015.01.019..

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Joint Replacement Department, Istituto Ortopedico “R. Galeazzi”, Via R. Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milano, Italy

    Sergio Romagnoli, Matteo Marullo, Francesco Verde & Michele Corbella

  2. Motion Analysis Laboratory, Istituto Ortopedico “R. Galeazzi”, Via R. Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milano, Italy

    Elena Stucovitz

Authors
  1. Sergio Romagnoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matteo Marullo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elena Stucovitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Francesco Verde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michele Corbella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matteo Marullo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopedic Service Line, Northwell Health , New York, New York, USA

    Giles R. Scuderi

  2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Rutgers-Robert Wood JohnsonMedicalSchool Department of Orthopedic Surgery, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA

    Alfred J. Tria

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this entry

Cite this entry

Romagnoli, S., Marullo, M., Stucovitz, E., Verde, F., Corbella, M. (2016). Bi-unicompartmental Knee Protheses. In: Scuderi, G., Tria, A. (eds) Minimally Invasive Surgery in Orthopedics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-34109-5_57

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-34109-5_57

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-34107-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-34109-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineReference Module Medicine

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation