Medial joint line elevation of the tibia measured during surgery has a significant correlation with the limb alignment changes following medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

  • Yuichi Kuroda
  • Koji Takayama
  • Kazunari Ishida
  • Shinya Hayashi
  • Shingo Hashimoto
  • Masanori Tsubosaka
  • Takehiko Matsushita
  • Takahiro Niikura
  • Kotaro Nishida
  • Ryosuke Kuroda
  • Tomoyuki Matsumoto
Knee
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to determine the correlation between the change in joint line height calculated from the resected bone and insert thickness during surgery and the change in limb alignment following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). It was hypothesized that joint line elevation is correlated with the change in limb alignment.

Methods

A total of 74 consecutive patients diagnosed with either isolated medial compartmental osteoarthritis (38 patients) or spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee (36 patients) were included. The thickness of the proximal tibial and distal femoral bony cuts was measured during surgery; using these values, the medial joint line elevation of the tibia (MJLET) and medial joint line reduction of the femur (MJLRF) were defined. The correlation between the amount of change in the hip–knee–ankle (HKA) angle before and after surgery (δHKA) and the thickness of the tibial insert (TI), MJLET, or MJLRF were evaluated.

Results

The mean values of δHKA, TI, MJLET, and MJLRF were 5.0° ± 2.6°, 8.5 ± 0.8, 4.4 ± 1.3, and 0.0 ± 1.1 mm, respectively. The δHKA had a significant, but weak-positive correlation with the TI (P = 0.02), and moderate-positive correlation with MJLET (P < 0.001). However, no correlation was observed between δHKA and MJLRF.

Conclusions

The MJLET measured during surgery had a significant moderate-positive correlation with the change in limb alignment following medial UKA. For clinical relevance, the surgeon can predict postoperative limb alignment after UKA by considering, intraoperatively, both the insert thickness and the depth of resection at the proximal tibia thus minimizing technical error to obtain an optimal alignment after UKA.

Level of evidence

Diagnostic study, level II.

Keywords

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) Joint line Alignment 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interests to declare.

Ethical approval

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

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Akizuki S, Mueller JK, Horiuchi H, Matsunaga D, Shibakawa A, Komistek RD (2009) In vivo determination of kinematics for subjects having a Zimmer Unicompartmental High Flex Knee System. J Arthroplast 24(6):963–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aleto TJ, Berend ME, Ritter MA, Faris PM, Meneghini RM (2008) Early failure of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty leading to revision. J Arthroplast 23(2):159–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arguello-Cuenca JM, Vaquero-Martin J, Corella F, Calvo JA, Rodriganez L (2012) Clinical and functional outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: influence of the mechanical axis correction. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol 56(1):32–37PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hernigou P, Deschamps G (2004) Alignment influences wear in the knee after medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 423:161–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Herry Y, Batailler C, Lording T, Servien E, Neyret P, Lustig S (2017) Improved joint-line restitution in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using a robotic-assisted surgical technique. Int Orthop 41(11):2265–2271CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hopgood P, Martin CP, Rae PJ (2004) The effect of tibial implant size on post-operative alignment following medial unicompartmental knee replacement. Knee 11(5):385–388CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:13–14Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kennedy WR, White RP (1987) Unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee. Postoperative alignment and its influence on overall results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 221:278–285Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim KT, Lee S, Kim TW, Lee JS, Boo KH (2012) The influence of postoperative tibiofemoral alignment on the clinical results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res 24(2):85–90CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim SJ, Bae JH, Lim HC (2012) Factors affecting the postoperative limb alignment and clinical outcome after Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 27(6):1210–1215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klemme WR, Galvin EG, Petersen SA (1994) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Sequential radiographic and scintigraphic imaging with an average five-year follow-up. Clin Orthop Relat Res 301:233–238Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kuwashima U, Okazaki K, Tashiro Y, Mizu-Uchi H, Hamai S, Okamoto S et al (2015) Correction of coronal alignment correlates with reconstruction of joint height in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Bone Jt Res 4(8):128–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ridgeway SR, McAuley JP, Ammeen DJ, Engh GA (2002) The effect of alignment of the knee on the outcome of unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Jt Surg Br 84(3):351–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Scott RD, Cobb AG, McQueary FG, Thornhill TS (1991) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Eight- to 12-year follow-up evaluation with survivorship analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 271:96–100Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Squire MW, Callaghan JJ, Goetz DD, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC (1999) Unicompartmental knee replacement. A minimum 15 year followup study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 367:61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tashiro Y, Matsuda S, Okazaki K, Mizu-Uchi H, Kuwashima U, Iwamoto Y (2014) The coronal alignment after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty can be predicted: usefulness of full-length valgus stress radiography for evaluating correctability. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22(12):3142–3149CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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):117–121CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weale AE, Murray DW, Baines J, Newman JH (2000) Radiological changes five years after unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Jt Surg Br 82(7):996–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Weber P, Schroder C, Laubender RP, Baur-Melnyk A, von Schulze Pellengahr C, Jansson V et al (2013) Joint line reconstruction in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: development and validation of a measurement method. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21(11):2468–2473CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wen PF, Guo WS, Gao FQ, Zhang QD, Yue JA, Cheng LM et al (2017) Effects of lower limb alignment and tibial component inclination on the biomechanics of lateral compartment in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Chin Med J (Engl) 130(21):2563–2568CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuichi Kuroda
    • 1
  • Koji Takayama
    • 1
  • Kazunari Ishida
    • 2
  • Shinya Hayashi
    • 1
  • Shingo Hashimoto
    • 1
  • Masanori Tsubosaka
    • 1
  • Takehiko Matsushita
    • 1
  • Takahiro Niikura
    • 1
  • Kotaro Nishida
    • 1
  • Ryosuke Kuroda
    • 1
  • Tomoyuki Matsumoto
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryKobe University Graduate School of MedicineKobeJapan
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryKobe Kaisei HospitalKobeJapan

Personalised recommendations