Unicompartmental knee prosthesis implantation with a non-image-based navigation system: rationale, technique, case-control comparative study with a conventional instrumented implantation

  • Jean-Yves JennyEmail author
  • Cyril Boeri


The accuracy of implantation is an accepted prognostic factor for the long-term survival of unicompartmental knee prostheses (UKP). We developed a non-image-guided navigation system for UKP implantation without any extramedullary or intramedullary guiding device. The 30 patients operated on with the navigation system (group A) were matched to 30 patients operated on with the conventional technique (group B) using age, sex, body mass index, preoperative coronal mechanical femorotibial angle, and severity of the preoperative degenerative changes. All patients had a complete radiological examination in the first 3 months after the index procedure, with anteroposterior and lateral plain knee radiographs and anteroposterior and lateral long leg radiographs. Coronal femorotibial mechanical angle and both coronal and sagittal orientations of the femoral and tibial components were measured. There were no significant differences in the mean numerical values of all measured angles except for the sagittal orientation of the tibial component, with a significant excessive posterior tibial slope in group B. There was a significant increase in the rate of prostheses implanted in the desired angular range for all criteria except the coronal mechanical femorotibial angle in group A. An optimal implantation with all optimal items was obtained by 18 cases in group A and 6 cases in group B. Navigated implantation of a UKP with the used, non-image-based system improved the accuracy of the radiological implantation without any significant inconvenience and with little change in the conventional operative technique. The only inconvenience was a 20-min longer operative time. This improvement could be related to a longer survival of such implanted prostheses.


Knee Unicompartmental prosthesis Navigation system 


  1. 1.
    Ahlback S (1968) Osteoarthrosis of the knee. A radiographic investigation. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh) [Suppl] 277:1–72Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Argenson JN, Chevrol-Benkeddache Y, Aubaniac JM (2001) Modern cemented metalbacked unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a 3 to 10 year follow-up study. Poster presentation, 68th annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bert JM (1998) 10-year survivorship of metal-backed, unicompartmental arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 13:901–905PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cartier P, Sanouillier JL, Grelsamer RP (1996) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty surgery. 10-year minimum follow-up period. J Arthroplasty 11:782–788PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Delp SL, Stulberg SD, Davies B, Picard F, Leitner F (1998) Computer assisted knee replacement. Clin Orthop 354:49–56Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Epinette JA, Edidin AA (1997) Hydroxyapatite-coated unicompartmental knee replacement. A report of five to six years' follow-up of the HA Unix tibial component. In: Cartier P, Epinette JA, Deschamps G, Hernigou P (eds) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Expansion Scientifique Française, Paris, pp 243–259Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hernigou P, Deschamps G (1996) Prothèses unicompartimentales du genou. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 82 [Suppl] 1:23Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jenny JY, Boeri C (2001) Implantation d'une prothèse totale de genou assistée par ordinateur. Etude comparative cas-témoin avec une instrumentation traditionnelle. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 87:645–652Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jenny JY, Boeri C (2002) Unicompartmental knee prosthesis. A case-control comparative study of two types of instrumentation with a five year follow-up. J Arthroplasty (in press)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lootvoet L, Burton P, Himmer O, Piot L, Ghosez JP (1997) Prothèses unicompartimentales de genou: influence du positionnement du plateau tibial sur les résultats fonctionnels. Acta Orthop Belg 63:94–101Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Newman JH, Ackroyd CE, Shah NA (1998) Unicompartmental or total knee replacement? Five-year results of a prospective, randomized trial of 102 osteoarthritic knees with unicompartmental arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:862–865PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Riebel GD, Werner FW, Ayers DC, Bromka J, Murray DG (1995) Early failure of the femoral component in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 10:615–621PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Robertsson O, Borgquist L, Knuston K, Lewold S, Lidgren L (1999) Use of unicompartmental instead of tricompartmental prostheses for unicompartmental arthrosis in the knee is a cost-effective alternative. 14,437 primary tricompartmental prostheses were compared with 10,624 primary medial or lateral unicompartmental prostheses. Acta Orthop Scand 70:170–175Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Robertsson O, Dunbar M, Pehrsson T, Knutson K, Lidgren L (2000) Patient satisfaction after knee arthroplasty: a report on 27:372 knees operated on between 1981 and 1995 in Sweden. Acta Orthop Scand 71:262–267Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Saragaglia D, Picard F, Chaussard C, Montbarbon E, Leitner F, Cinquin P (2001) Mise en place des prothèses totales du genou assistée par ordinateur: comparaison avec la technique conventionelle. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 87:18–28Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schai PA, Suh JT, Thornhill TS, Scott RD (1998) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in middle-aged patients: a 2- to 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty 13:365–372PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Squire MV, Callaghan JJ, Goetz DD, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC (1999) Unicompartmental knee replacement. A minimum 15-year follow-up study. Clin Orthop 367:61–72Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tabor OB Jr, Tabor OB (1998) Unicompartmental arthroplasty: a long-term follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 13:373–379PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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 10:764–771PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre de Traumatologie et d'OrthopédieIllkirch-GraffenstadenFrance

Personalised recommendations