Abstract
The purpose of this study was to analyze the in vivo dimensions of each tibial plateau for planning of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), and to compare the morphometric data to the dimensions of nine current designs of UKA tibial components. Thirty-seven knees (31 females and 6 males) operated on with UKA were studied. All patients were examined postoperatively using computed tomography (CT). There were 18 lateral and 19 medial UKAs. On the CT scan, each operated tibial plateau was measured in the transverse plane at the resection level, just below the full polyethylene tibial component. We measured the length of the anteroposterior (AP) cut as well as the maximal mediolateral dimension of the resected plateau (perpendicular to the AP cut). We compared the measurements with nine current UKA systems: Accuris (Smith and Nephew), Advance (Wright Medical), HLS Uni Evolution (Tornier), Miller-Galante and “ZUK” (Zimmer), Oxford and Oxford α (Biomet), Preservation (DePuy) and Unix (Stryker). There was good correlation between patient height and mediolateral dimension (r = 0.6), and between patient height and area of total tibial plateau (r = 0.7). The anteroposterior dimension was greater for the medial plateau (mean 50.8 mm, SD 3.3) than for the lateral plateau (mean 47.2 mm, SD 3.3). This difference was statistically significant (P = 0.0016). Some UKA implants are designed with an asymmetric femoral component, but none have an asymmetric tibial component. The present study suggests, however, that the shape of the medial tibial plateau differs from that of the lateral plateau. This difference can lead to mediolateral overhang for medial UKA, if the surgeon aims for optimal anteroposterior coverage.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bare JV, Gill HS, Beard DJ, Murray DW (2006) A convex lateral tibial plateau for knee replacement. Knee 13:122–126
Bohm I, Landsiedl l (2000) Revision surgery after failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study of 35 cases. J Arthroplasty 15:982–989
Bothra V, Lemon G, Lang D, Smith DM, Ali AM (2003) Reliability of templating in estimating the size of uni-condylar knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 18:780–783
Deshmukh RV, Scott RD (2001) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: long-term results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 392:272–278
Fitzpatrick C, FitzPatrick D, Lee J, Auger D (2007) Statistical design of unicompartmental tibial implants and comparison with current devices. Knee 14:138–144
Hitt K, Shurman JR, Greene K, McCarthy J, Moskal J, Hoeman T, Mont MA (2003) Anthropometric measurements of the human knee: correlation to the sizing of current knee arthroplasty systems. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85:115–122
Incavo SJ, Ronchetti PJ, Howe JG, Tranowski JP (1994) Tibial plateau coverage in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 299:81–85
Kwak DS, Surendran S, Pengatteeri YH, Park SE, Choi KN, Gopinathan P, Han SH, Han CW (2007) Morphometry of the proximal tibia to design the tibial component of total knee arthroplasty for the Korean population. Knee 14:295–300
Lemaire P, Pioletti DP, Meyer FM, Meuli R, Dorfl J, Leyvraz PF (1997) Tibial component positioning in total knee arthroplasty: bone coverage and extensor apparatus alignment. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 5:251–257
McAuley JP, Engh GA, Ammeen DJ (2001) Revision of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 392:279–282
McDermott ID, Sharifi F, Bull AM, Gupte CM, Thomas RW, Amis AA (2004) An anatomical study of meniscal allograft sizing. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 12:130–135
Murray DW, Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ (1998) The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a ten-year survival study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:983–989
Robinson BJ, Rees JL, Price AJ, Beard DJ, Murray DW, McLardy Smith P, Dodd CA (2002) Dislocation of the bearing of the Oxford lateral unicompartmental arthroplasty. A radiological assessment. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84:653–657
Servien E, Verdonk PM, Aïtsiselmi T, Neyret P (2007) How to select candidates for lateral unicompartmental prosthesis. Techn Knee Surg 6:51–59
Stone KR, Freyer A, Turek T, Walgenbach AW, Wadhwa S, Crues J (2007) Meniscal sizing based on gender, height, and weight. Arthroscopy 23:503–508
Surendran S, Kwak DS, Lee UY, Park SE, Gopinathan P, Han SH, Han CW (2007) Anthropometry of the medial tibial condyle to design the tibial component for unicondylar knee arthroplasty for the Korean population. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15:436–442
Svard UC, Price AJ (2001) Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. A survival analysis of an independent series. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83:191–194
Uehara K, Kadoya Y, Kobayashi A, Ohashi H, Yamano Y (2002) Anthropometry of the proximal tibia to design a total knee prosthesis for the Japanese population. J Arthroplasty 17:1028–1032
Westrich GH, Haas SB, Insall JN, Frachie A (1995) Resection specimen analysis of proximal tibial anatomy based on 100 total knee arthroplasty specimens. J Arthroplasty 10:47–51
Yoshioka Y, Siu DW, Scudamore RA, Cooke TD (1989) Tibial anatomy and functional axes. J Orthop Res 7:132–137
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Servien, E., Saffarini, M., Lustig, S. et al. Lateral versus medial tibial plateau: morphometric analysis and adaptability with current tibial component design. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthr 16, 1141–1145 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-008-0620-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-008-0620-0