Comparison of the outcomes of navigation-assisted revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty versus navigation-assisted primary TKA
- 313 Downloads
Revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is technically demanding but can be performed with computer navigation system guidance. The purpose of this study was (1) to compare the outcomes of revision of UKA to TKA to those of primary TKA and (2) to describe a surgical technique for the revision of UKA to TKA using a navigation system.
From May 2011 to April 2014, a total of 298 knees underwent primary navigation-assisted TKA (group 1), and navigation-assisted UKA revision to TKA was performed in 15 patients (group 2). One to three propensity score matching was performed to compare the two groups after a minimum of three years of follow-up. Radiographic and clinical outcomes in addition to radiolucent lines were evaluated during follow-up.
In group 1, there was one case that required metal block augmentation with the long stem under the tibial plate due to severe bone loss, while in other cases, short stems were used, and cement and autogenous bone grafts were used to fill bone defects due to minimal bone loss. Pre- and post-operative outcomes were significantly improved in both groups (p < 0.001). There were no statistical differences between groups in pre- and post-operative outcomes except post-operative Knee Society Function Score (KSFS) (p = 0.008). There were no radiolucent lines in the tibia or femur in either group during follow-up.
With the use of an appropriate surgical technique, navigation-assisted revision of UKA to TKA can yield clinical and radiologic outcomes comparable to those of primary navigation-assisted TKA.
Level of Evidence: Level IV
KeywordsUnicompartmental knee arthroplasty Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revision Navigation system Total knee arthroplasty
Compliance with ethical standards
This study was approved by the appropriate ethics committee of our hospital.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest (IRB No:1612-009-16023).
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- 6.Miller M, Benjamin JB, Marson B, Hollstien S (2002) The effect of implant constraint on results of conversion of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 25(12):1353–1357 discussion 1357Google Scholar
- 15.Saragaglia D, Cognault J, Refaie R, Rubens-Duval B, Mader R, Rouchy RC, Plaweski S, Pailhe R (2015) 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. Int Orthop 39(9):1779–1784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Ko YB, Jang EC, Park SM, Kim SH, Kwak YH, Lee HJ (2015) No difference in clinical and radiologic outcomes after total knee arthroplasty with a new ultra-congruent mobile bearing system and rotating platform mobile bearing systems after minimum 5-year follow-up. J Arthroplast 30(3):379–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Lee HJ, Lee JS, Jung HJ, Song KS, Yang JJ, Park CW (2011) Comparison of joint line position changes after primary bilateral total knee arthroplasty performed using the navigation-assisted measured gap resection or gap balancing techniques. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19(12):2027–2032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Ewald FC (1989) The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:9–12Google Scholar