Accuracy of tibial component placement in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty performed using an accelerometer-based portable navigation system

  • Yoshio MatsuiEmail author
  • Shinichi Fukuoka
  • Sho Masuda
  • Masanori Matsuura
  • Toshiaki Masada
  • Kenji Fukunaga



There is a need for new devices to improve the accuracy of implantation in unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKAs). The accelerometer-based portable navigation system is expected to improve this accuracy. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of UKAs performed by the portable navigation system with that of the conventional method, and to investigate whether the portable navigation system can complement the surgeon’s experience.


The study comprised of 80 Oxford UKAs. Knees were divided into two groups based on the method of tibial osteotomy: the conventional group (37 UKAs performed by an experienced surgeon using the extra-medullary guide) and the portable navigation group (43 UKAs performed by 2 unaccustomed surgeons using the navigation system). The absolute error from the target angle on the coronal and sagittal plane was measured on whole lower leg X-ray. The incidence of outliers (> 3°) was compared between the groups using Fisher’s exact probability test.


The incidences of outliers on the coronal plane were 41.0% (15 of 37 knees) in the conventional group and 9.3% (4 of 43 knees) in the portable navigation group (p < 0.0001). The incidences of outliers on the sagittal plane were 13.5% (5 of 37 knees) in the conventional group and 14.0% (6 of 43 knees) in the portable navigation group (p = 0.3772).


This is the first report on the usefulness of an accelerometer-based portable navigation system in UKA. The use of this system improves the accuracy of implantation of the tibial component beyond the experience of the surgeon.

Level of evidence

Retrospective comparative study, Level III


Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty Accelerometer Portable navigation system Alignment 



This study was not externally funded.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All study participants provided informed consent, and the study design was approved by the appropriate ethics review board.


  1. 1.
    Asada S, Inoue S, Tsukamoto I, Mori S, Akagi M (2019) Obliquity of tibial component after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee 26(2):410–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barbadoro P, Ensini A, Leardini A, d'Amato M, Feliciangeli A, Timoncini A, Amadei F, Belvedere C, Giannini S (2014) Tibial component alignment and risk of loosening in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a radiographic and radiostereometric study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22(12):3157–3162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berger RA, Meneghini RM, Jacobs JJ, Sheinkop MB, Della Valle CJ, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO (2005) Results of unicompartmental kneearthroplasty at a minimum of ten years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:999–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bruni D, Iacono F, Russo A, Zaffagnini S, Marcheggiani Muccioli GM, Bignozzi S, Bragonzoni L, Marcacci M (2010) Minimally invasive unicompartmental knee replacement: retrospective clinical and radiographic evaluation of 83 patients. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18(6):710–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burn E, Sanchez-Santos MT, Pandit HG, Hamilton TW, Liddle AD, Murray DW, Pinedo-Villanueva R (2018) Ten-year patient-reported outcomes following total and minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a propensity score-matched cohort analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26(5):1455–1464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burnett RSJ, Barrack RL (2013) Computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty is currently of no proven clinical benefit: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(1):264–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chowdhry M, Khakha RS, Norris M, Kheiran A, Chauhan SK (2017) Improved survival of computer-assisted unicompartmental knee: 252 cases with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. J Arthroplasty 32(4):1132–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clayton AW, Cherian JJ, Banerjee S, Kapadia BH, Jauregui JJ, Harwin SF, Mont MA (2014) Does the use of navigation in total knee arthroplasty affect outcomes? J Knee Surg 27(3):171–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Duchman KR, Gao Y, Pugely AJ, Martin CT, Callaghan JJ (2014) Differences in short-term complications between unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty: a propensity score matched analysis: a propensity score matched analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96(16):1387–1394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fujimoto E, Asashige Y, Nakata K, Yokata G, Omoto T, Ochi M (2017) Technical consideration and accuracy improvement of accelerometer-based portable computer navigation for performing distal femoral resection in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 32(1):53–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gharaibeh MA, Solayar GN, Harris IA, Chen DB, MacDessi SJ (2017) Accelerometer-based, portable navigation (KneeAlign) vs conventional Instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized comparative trial. J Arthroplast 32(3):777–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hamilton TW, Rizkalla JM, Kontochristos L, Marks BE, Mellon SJ, Dodd CAF, Pandit HG, Murray DW (2017) The interaction of caseload and usage in determining outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplast 32(10):3228–3237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hernigou P, Deschamps G (2004) Alignment influences wear in the knee after medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 423:161–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ikawa T, Takemura T, Kimm M, Takaoka K, Kadoya Y (2017) Usefulness of an accelerometer-based portable navigation system in total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 99(8):1047–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Innocenti B, Pianigiani S, Ramundo G, Thienpont E (2016) Biomechanical effects of different varus and valgus alignments in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 31(12):2685–2691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jeer PJ, Keene GC, Gill P (2004) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: an intermediate report of survivorship after the introduction of a new system with analysis of failures. Knee 11(5):369–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kasodekar VB, Yeo SJ, Othman S (2006) Clinical outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and influence of alignment on prosthesis survival rate. Singap Med J 47(9):796–802Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    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
  19. 19.
    Koh IJ, Kim JH, Jang SW, Kim C, In Y (2016) Are the Oxford(®) medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty new instruments reducing the bearing dislocation risk while improving components relationships? A case control study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 102(2):183–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Koskinen E, Eskelinen A, Paavolainen P, Pulkkinen P, Remes V (2008) Comparison of survival and costeffec tiveness 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 79(4):499–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liddle AD, Judge A, Pandit H, Murray DW (2014) Adverse outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee replacement in 101,330 matched patients: a study of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet 384(9952):1437–1445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liddle AD, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray DW (2015) Optimal usage of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study of 41,986 cases from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Bone Joint J 97B(1):1506–1511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liddle AD, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray DW (2015) Patient-reported outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study of 14,076 matched patients from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Bone Joint J 97B:793–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lombardi AV Jr, Berend KR, Walter CA, Aziz-Jacobo J, Cheney NA (2009) Is recovery faster for mobile-bearing unicompartmental than total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(6):1450–1457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lyons MC, MacDonald SJ, Somerville LE, Naudie DD, McCalden RW (2012) Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty database analysis: is there a winner? Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(1):84–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Moo IH, Chen JYQ, Chau DHH, Tan SW, Lau ACK, Teo YS (2018) Similar radiological results with accelerometer-based navigation versus conventional technique in total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 26(2):2309499018772374. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Morris MJ, Molli RG, Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr (2013) Mortality and perioperativecomplications after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee 20(3):218–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Murray DW, Liddle AD, Dodd CA, Pandit H (2015) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is the glass half full or half empty? Bone Joint J 97B(A):3–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nam D, Week KD, Reinhardt KR, Nawabi DH, Cross MB, Mayman DJ (2013) Accelerometer-Based, Portable Navigation vs Imageless, Large-Console Computer-Assisted Navigation in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Comparison of Radiographic Results. J Arthroplasty 28(2):255–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rachha R, Veravalli K, Sood M (2013) Medium term results of the Miller-Galante knee arthroplasty with 10 year survivorship. Acta Orthop Belg 79(2):197–204PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    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 Joint Surg Br 84(3):351–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Selvanayagam R, Kumar V, Malhotra R, Srivastava DN, Digge VK (2019) A prospective randomized study comparing navigation versus conventional total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 27(2):2309499019848079. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Song EK, Mohite N, Lee SH, Na BR, Seon JK (2016) Comparison of outcome and survival after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty between navigation and conventional techniques with an average 9-year follow-up. J Arthroplast 31(2):395–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tu Y, Xue H, Wen T, Zhang H, Cai M (2017) Superior femoral component alignment can be achieved with Oxford microplasty instrumentation after minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25(3):729–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ueyama H, Matsui Y, Minoda Y, Matsuura M, Nakamura H (2017) Using accelerometer-bassed portable navigation to performe accurate total knee arthropasty bone resection in Asian patients. Orthopedics 40(3):e465–e472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ueyama H, Minoda Y, Sugama R, Ohta Y, Yamamura S, Tkemura S, Nakamura H (2019) An accelerometer-based portable navigation system improved prosthetic alignment after total knee arthroplasty in 3D measurements. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 27(5):1580–1586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Walker T, Heinemann P, Bruckner T, Streit MR, Kinkel S, Gotterbarm T (2017) The influence of different sets of surgical instrumentation in Oxford UKA on bearing size and component position. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137(7):895–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wen PF, Guo WS, Gao FQ, Zhang QD, Yue JA, Cheng LM, Zhu GD (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):2563–2568. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Willis-Owen CA, Brust K, Alsop H, Miraldo M, Cobb JP (2009) Unicondylar knee arthroplasty in the UK National Health Service: an analysis of candidacy, outcome and cost efficacy. Knee 16(6):473–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zambianchi F, Digennaro V, Giorgini A, Grandi G, Fiacchi F, Mugnai R, Catani F (2015) Surgeon's experience influences UKA survivorship: a comparative study between all-poly and metal back designs. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23(7):2074–2080CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Osaka City General HospitalOsaka CityJapan
  2. 2.Nishinomiya Watanabe HospitalOsaka CityJapan

Personalised recommendations