Improved accuracy in computer-assisted unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis
- 680 Downloads
Inaccurate implantation rates of up to 30 % have been reported in cases using the conventional technique for implantation of a unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Navigation should permit a more precise implantation, and several studies have investigated its role, albeit with a limited number of patients and inconsistent results. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare risks of unsatisfactory outcomes in patients with navigated and conventional technique.
An electronic search was performed, and ten studies were eligible and included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 258 prostheses implanted with the navigated technique and 295 with the conventional one. The following items were analysed: radiological positioning of the femoral and the tibial component in the AP and lateral view, radiological analysis of the tibiofemoral mechanical axis and the difference in operating time between the two groups. Relative risks (RR) were calculated from the reported percentages of implants outside the optimal ranges defined by the manufacturers or the study groups. Natural logarithms of the relative risks were pooled by means of random effects models.
For all the analysed radiological parameters, the RR of measurements outside the optimal ranges were less than 1 in the navigation group suggesting a reduction in the risk of outliers with navigation. The average operating time in the navigated group was 15.4 min (95 % CI: 10.2–20.6) longer than in the conventional group.
The meta-analysis shows that the use of navigation systems in UKA leads to a more precise component position. Whether the more accurate position in UKA results in a better clinical outcome or long-term survival is yet unknown. Nevertheless, as a precise implant position appears to be beneficial, the use of navigation should be recommended for UKA. The limits defined by the manufacturers for an optimal positioning are not consistent.
Level of evidence
Therapeutic study (Systematic review of Level II/III studies), Level III.
KeywordsNavigation Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty Component position Meta-analysis Accuracy
Conflict of interest
- 1.The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register (2010) Annual Report 2010. Wallin & Dalholm, LundGoogle Scholar
- 9.Czurda T, Fennema P, Baumgartner M, Ritschl P (2010) The association between component malalignment and post-operative pain following navigation-assisted total knee arthroplasty: results of a cohort/nested case-control study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:863–869PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Dalury DF, Fisher DA, Adams MJ, Gonzales RA (2009) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compares favorably to total knee arthroplasty in the same patient. Orthopedics 32. http://www.orthosupersite.com/view.asp?rID=38057
- 12.Gulati A, Pandit H, Jenkins C, Chau R, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2009) The effect of leg alignment on the outcome of unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Jt Surg Br 91:469–474Google Scholar
- 15.Hernigou P, Deschamps G (2004) Posterior slope of the tibial implant and the outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg Am 86-A:506–511Google Scholar
- 17.Jenny JY (2008) Unicompartmental knee replacement: a comparison of four techniques combining less invasive approach and navigation. Orthopedics 31. http://www.orthosupersite.com/view.asp?rID=35549
- 22.Keene G, Simpson D, Kalairajah Y (2006) Limb alignment in computer-assisted minimally-invasive unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Jt Surg Br 88:44–48Google Scholar
- 32.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 88:54–60Google Scholar
- 39.Weber P, Utzschneider S, Sadoghi P, Pietschmann MF, Ficklscherer A, Jansson V, Muller PE (2012) Navigation in minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty has no advantage in comparison to a conventional minimally invasive implantation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132:281–288PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar