International Orthopaedics

, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp 457–463 | Cite as

Computer-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using dedicated software versus a conventional technique

  • Alfonso ManzottiEmail author
  • Pietro Cerveri
  • Chris Pullen
  • Norberto Confalonieri
Original Paper



The aim of this study was to retrospectively compare the results of two matched-paired groups of patients who had undergone a medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) performed using either a conventional or a non-image-guided navigation technique specifically designed for unicompartmental prosthesis implantation.


Thirty-one patients with isolated medial-compartment knee arthritis who underwent an isolated navigated UKA were included in the study (group A) and matched with patients who had undergone a conventional medial UKA (group B). The same inclusion criteria were used for both groups. At a minimum of six months, all patients were clinically assessed using the Knee Society Score (KSS) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) index. Radiographically, the frontal-femoral-component angle, the frontal-tibial-component angle, the hip-knee-ankle angle and the sagittal orientation of components (slopes) were evaluated. Complications related to the implantation technique, length of hospital stay and surgical time were compared.


At the latest follow-up, no statistically significant differences were seen in the KSS, function scores and WOMAC index between groups. Patients in group B had a statistically significant shorter mean surgical time. Tibial coronal and sagittal alignments were statistically better in the navigated group, with five cases of outliers in the conventional alignment technique group. Postoperative mechanical axis was statistically better aligned in the navigated group, with two cases of overcorrection from varus to valgus in group B. No differences in length of hospital stay or complications related to implantation technique were seen between groups.


This study shows that a specifically designed UKA-dedicated navigation system results in better implant alignment in UKA surgery. Whether this improved alignment results in better clinical results in the long term has yet to be proven.


Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty Computer-assisted 


Conflict of interest

Alfonso Manzotti, Chris Pullen and Pietro Cerveri have no conflict of interest. Norberto Confalonieri has a financial relationship with DePuy (Warsaw, IN, USA) to develop the Monet software for UKA navigation.


  1. 1.
    John J, Kuiper JH, May PC (2009) Age at follow-up and mechanical axis are good predictors of function after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. An analysis of patients over 17 years follow-up. Acta Orthop Belg 75(1):45–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kennedy WR, White RP (1987) Unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee. Postoperative alignment and its influence on overall results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 221:278–85PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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 84:351–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sarangi PP, Karachalios T, Jackson M, Newman JH (1994) Patterns of failed internal unicompartmental knee prostheses, allowing persistence of undercorrection. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 80:217–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Voss F, Sheinkop MB, Galante JO, Barden RM, Rosenberg AG (1995) Miller-Galante unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at 2- to 5-year follow-up evaluations. J Arthroplasty 10:764–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hernigou P, Deschamps G (2004) Alignment influences wear in the knee after medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 423:161–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hernigou P, Deschamps G (2004) Posterior slope of the tibial implant and the outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86:506–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kort NP, van Raay JJ, Thomassen BJ (2007) Alignment of the femoral component in a mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study in 10 cadaver femora. Knee 14:280–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bae DK, Song SJ (2011) Computer assisted navigation in knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Surg 3:259–67PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zamora LA, Humphreys KJ, Watt AM, Forel D, Cameron AL (2013) Systematic review of computer-navigated total knee arthroplasty. ANZ J Surg 83:22–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nakano N, Matsumoto T, Ishida K, Tsumura N, Kuroda R, Kurosaka M (2013) Long-term subjective outcomes of computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 37:1911–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yaffe M, Chan P, Goyal N, Luo M, Cayo M, Stulberg SD (2013) Computer-assisted versus manual TKA: no difference in clinical or functional outcomes at 5-year follow-up. Orthopedics 36:e627–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jenny JY, Boeri C (2002) Accuracy of implantation of a unicompartmental total knee arthroplasty with 2 different instrumentations: a case-controlled comparative study. J Arthroplasty 17:1016–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keene G, Simpson D, Kalairajah Y (2006) Limb alignment in computer-assisted minimally-invasive unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88:44–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lim MH, 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 17:341–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Perlick L, Bathis H, Tingart M, et al. (2004) Minimally invasive unicompartmental knee replacement with a nonimage-based navigation system 28:193–71Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weber P, Crispin A, Schmidutz F, Utzschneider S, Pietschmann MF, Jansson V, Müller PE (2013) Improved accuracy in computer-assisted unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Valenzuela GA, Jacobson NA, Geist DJ, Valenzuela RG, Teitge RA (2013) Implant and limb alignment outcomes for conventional and navigated unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 28:463–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ahlbäck S (1968) Osteoarthrosis of the knee. A radiographic investigation. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh) 277:7–72Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1998) Rationale of the Knee Society Clinical Rating System. Clin Orthop 248:13–14Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW (1988) Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip and knee. J Rheumatol 15:1833–1840PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Manzotti A, Confalonieri N, Pullen C (2007) Unicompartmental versus computer-assisted total knee replacement for medial compartment knee arthritis: a matched paired study. Int Orthop 31:315–9PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Confalonieri N, Manzotti A, Pullen C (2007) Navigated shorter incision or smaller implant in knee arthritis? Clin Orthop Relat Res 463:63–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Berger RA, Meneghini RM, Jacobs JJ, Skeinkop MB, Della Valle CJ, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO (2005) Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a follow-up of ten-years follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg 87A:999–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Newman JH, Ackroyd CE, Shah NA (2001) Unicompartmental or total knee replacement ? J Bone Joint Surg 80B:862–865Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Newman J, Pydisetty RV, Ackroyd C (2009) Unicompartmental or total knee replacement: the 15-year results of a prospective randomised controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91:52–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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 16:473–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Prime MS, Palmer J, Khan WS (2011) The National Joint Registry of England and Wales. OrthopedicsGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mercier N, Wimsey S, Saragaglia D (2010) Long-term clinical results of the Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 34:1137–43PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Markel DC, Sutton K (2005) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: trouble shooting implant positioning and technical failures. J Knee Surg 18:96–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Robertsson O, Knutson K, Lewold S, Lidgren L (2001) The routine of surgical management reduces failure after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83:45–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alfonso Manzotti
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  • Pietro Cerveri
    • 3
  • Chris Pullen
    • 2
  • Norberto Confalonieri
    • 1
  1. 1.Ist Orthopedic Department, C.T.O. HospitalMilanItaly
  2. 2.Royal Melbourne HospitalParkvilleAustralia
  3. 3.Bioengineering Department, Politecnico di MilanoMilanItaly
  4. 4.CambiagoItaly

Personalised recommendations