Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Computer navigation for revision of unicompartmental knee replacements to total knee replacements: the results of a case–control study of forty six knees comparing computer navigated and conventional surgery

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The revision of unicompartmental knee replacements (UKRs) to total knee replacements (TKRs) using computer navigation is a little-known technique. The principal objective of this study was to analyse the radiological position of implants in revision of UKR to TKR comparing the results of surgery aided by computer navigation (CAS) with conventional surgery (CS). Our hypothesis was that computer navigation would improve the position of the implants.

Methods

This is a retrospective single surgeon series. Forty-six patients (46 knees) with an average age 73 ± eight years (53–93) between January 1995 and December 2014 were included. The two groups were made up of 23 patients each and are comparable in terms of age, sex, side of surgery, age of the UKR, cause of failure and HKA angle before surgery. All patients were reviewed by two independent observers.

Results

In the CAS group, the average hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle was 179.2 ± 2.2° (175-184°). The average medial tibial mechanical angle (TMA) was 88.4 ± 1.6° (84-90°) and the medial femoral mechanical angle (FMA) was 91 ± 2° (87- 94°). The tibial slope was 88.7 ± 1.1° (87-90°). In the CS group, the average HKA angle was 179.9 ± 1.9° (175-183°), the TMA was on average 89.1 ± 1.3° (87-93°) and the FMA was 90.6 ± 1.5° (87-93°). The tibial slope was 87.8 ± 4.9° (85-95°). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups on any of the radiological parameters studied.

Conclusions

Our radiological target of a post-operative HKA angle of 180 ± 3° was obtained in 87.5 % of cases in the CS group and 92.4 % of cases in the CAS group. This slight difference in favour of the computer-assisted group was not statistically significant, and we cannot therefore confirm our initial hypothesis, at least in the hands of an experienced surgeon. However, the quality of the results in the CAS group suggest that this technique could provide precious assistance to less experienced surgeons performing this surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chatain F, Denjean S, Delalande JL, Chavane H, Bejui-Hugues J, Guyen O (2012) Computer-navigated revision total knee arthroplasty for failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 98:720–727

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Foong WS, Lo NN (2014) Rehabilitation outcomes following revision for failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Orthop 11:145–149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hang JR, Stanford TE, Graves SE, Davidson DC, de Steiger RN, Miller LN (2010) Outcome of revision of unicompartmental knee replacement. Acta Orthop 81:95–98

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jarvenpaa J, Kettunen J, Miettinen H, Kroger H (2010) The clinical outcome of revision knee replacement after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty: 8–17 years follow-up study of 49 patients. Int Orthop 34:649–653

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Jenny JY, Boeri C (2001) Computer-assisted implantation of a total knee arthroplasty: a case-controlled study in comparison with classical instrumentation. Rev Chir Orthop 87:645–652

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Johnson S, Jones P, Newman JH (2007) The survivorship and results of total knee replacements converted from unicompartmental knee replacements. Knee 14:154–157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jonas SC, Shah R, Mitra A, Deo SD (2014) 5-Year cost/benefit analysis of revision of failed unicompartmental knee replacements (UKRs); not “just” a primary total knee replacement (TKR). Knee 21:840–842

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kerens B, Boonen B, Schotanus M, Kort N (2013) Patient-specific guide for revision of medial unicondylar knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: beneficial first results of a new operating technique performed on 10 patients. Acta Orthop 84:165–169

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kerens B, Boonen B, Schotanus MG, Lacroix H, Emans PJ, Kort NP (2013) Revision from unicompartmental to total knee replacement: the clinical outcome depends on reason for revision. Bone Joint J 95-B:1204–1208

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Khan Z, Nawaz SZ, Kahane S, Esler C, Chatterji U (2013) Conversion of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: the challenges and need for augments. Acta Orthop Belg 79:699–705

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lewold S, Robertsson O, Knutson K, Lidgren L (1998) Revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: outcome in 1,135 cases from the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty study. Acta Orthop Scand 69:469–474

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pearse AJ, Hooper GJ, Rothwell A, Frampton C (2010) Survival and functional outcome after revision of a unicompartmental to a total knee replacement: the New Zealand National Joint Registry. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 92:508–512

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Pearse AJ, Hooper GJ, Rothwell AG, Frampton C (2012) Osteotomy and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty converted to total knee arthroplasty: data from the New Zealand Joint Registry. J Arthroplasty 27:1827–1831

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pietschmann MF, Ficklscherer A, Wohlleb L, Schmidutz F, Jansson V, Muller PE (2014) UKA can be safely revised to primary knee arthroplasty by using an autologous bone plate from the proximal lateral tibia. J Arthroplasty 29:1991–1995

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ramadier JO, Buard JE, Lortat-Jacob A, Benoit J (1982) Radiological assessment of knee deformity in the frontal plane (author’s transl). Rev Chir Orthop 68:75–78

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rancourt MF, Kemp KA, Plamondon SM, Kim PR, Dervin GF (2012) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasties revised to total knee arthroplasties compared with primary total knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 27:106–110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Robb CA, Matharu GS, Baloch K, Pynsent PB (2013) Revision surgery for failed unicompartmental knee replacement: technical aspects and clinical outcome. Acta Orthop Belg 79:312–317

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Saldanha KA, Keys GW, Svard UC, White SH, Rao C (2007) Revision of Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty—results of a multicentre study. Knee 14:275–279

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Saragaglia D (2009) Prothèse totale du genou assistée par ordinateur: 12 ans d’expérience grenobloise. e-Mem Acad Chir 8(1):53–58

    Google Scholar 

  20. Saragaglia D, Picard F, Chaussard C, Montbarbon E, Leitner F, Cinquin P (2001) Computer-assisted knee arthroplasty: comparison with a conventional procedure. Results of 50 cases in a prospective randomized study. Rev Chir Orthop 87:18–28

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Saragaglia D, Chaussard C, Rubens-Duval B (2006) Navigation as a predictor of soft tissue release during 90 cases of computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 29:S137–S138

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Saragaglia D, Estour G, Nemer C, Colle PE (2009) Revision of 33 unicompartmental knee prostheses using total knee arthroplasty: strategy and results. Int Orthop 33:969–974

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Saragaglia D, Bonnin M, Dejour D, Deschamps G, Chol C, Chabert B, Refaie R, French Society of H, Knee (2013) Results of a French multicentre retrospective experience with four hundred and eighteen failed unicondylar knee arthroplasties. Int Orthop 37:1273–1278

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sierra RJ, Kassel CA, Wetters NG, Berend KR, Della Valle CJ, Lombardi AV (2013) Revision of unicompartmental arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: not always a slam dunk! J Arthroplasty 28:128–132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wynn Jones H, Chan W, Harrison T, Smith TO, Masonda P, Walton NP (2012) Revision of medial Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement to a total knee replacement: similar to a primary? Knee 19:339–343

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sport Traumatology, Grenoble South Teaching Hospital, 38130, Échirolles, France

    Dominique Saragaglia, Jérémy Cognault, Brice Rubens-Duval, Roch Mader, René Christopher Rouchy, Stephane Plaweski & Régis Pailhé

  2. Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Wansbeck Hospital, Northumberland, UK

    Ramsay Refaie

Authors
  1. Dominique Saragaglia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jérémy Cognault
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ramsay Refaie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Brice Rubens-Duval
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Roch Mader
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. René Christopher Rouchy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Stephane Plaweski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Régis Pailhé
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dominique Saragaglia.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Saragaglia, D., Cognault, J., Refaie, R. et al. Computer navigation for revision of unicompartmental knee replacements to total knee replacements: the results of a case–control study of forty six knees comparing computer navigated and conventional surgery. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 39, 1779–1784 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2838-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2838-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation