Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has been shown to have many benefits over conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA), but has also been shown to be technically difficult. In fact, technical error is the most common cause of premature failure in UKA. Bicompartmental arthroplasty (BKA) has the potential to perform like TKA with the benefits of UKA. We describe the initial experience with customized alignment guides and implants for UKA and BKA, manufactured based upon preoperative CT scan. Twenty three implants in 19 patients were implanted and followed for a minimum of three months postoperatively. Knee society scores and SF-12 scores were collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Radiographs were analyzed with image analysis software for malposition and loosening.INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
we have previously reported that bone preparation is quite precise and accurate relative to a preoperative plan when using a robotic arm assisted technique for UKA. However, in that same study, we found a large variation between intended and final tibial implant position, presumably occuring during cement curing. In this study, we reviewed a subsequent cohort of patients in which the tibial and femoral components were cemented individually with ongoing evaluation of tibial component position during cement curing. Group 1 comprised the simultaneous cementing techniquegroup of patients, previously reported on, although their x-rays were re-analyzed. Group 2 consisted of the individual cementing technique cohort. All implants were identical, specifically a flat, inlay all-polyethylene tibial component. Postoperative x-rays from each cohort of patients were evaluated using image analysis software. Statistical evaluation was performed.INTRODUCTION
METHODS AND MATERIALS
Differences in femoral anatomy have been partially ascribed to gender differences. Traditionally, femoral stems for THA have been designed across an entire population including both males and females. The purpose of this study was to compare the applicability of two femoral stem systems in male and female populations via preoperative templating.
Restoration of proper alignment is one of the principle goals of TKA. Various methods are popular, including intramedullary (IM) and extramedullary (EM) mechanical guides, and recently computer assisted navigation (CAS). In addition, minimally invasive surgery has added an extra level of complexity to achieving satisfactory alignment. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of approach (standard arthrotomy vs MIS) and alignment technique (Mechanical vs CAS) upon component alignment in TKA. Methods. Three consecutive cohorts of patients were included: Group I--Standard arthrotomy with Mechanical guides; Group II-MIS approach with Mechanical guides; Group III-MIS approach with CAS. A single surgeon performed the Standard Mechanical cohort, and a second surgeon performed all surgeries in the other two cohorts. For the mechanical groups, IM femoral and EM tibial guides were used. For CAS, the Orthosoft system was used. All components were NexGen (Zimmer) Postoperative x-rays were used to measure component alignment relative to the IM axes, including femoral valgus and flexion, and tibial varus and slope, and patellar tilt. In addition, joint line position was measured. Students’ t-test was used to determine level of significance. Results. For Groups I, II and III, there were 41, 38 and 39 patients, respectively. For femoral alignment in the coronal plane, results were 4.83+4.29 degrees, 3.82+2.72 degrees, and 3.36+2.49 degrees, respectively. Femoral flexion was 2.93+2.82 degrees, 3.18+2.93 degrees, and 2.46+2.79 degrees, respectively. Tibial alignment was 0.44+3.98 degrees of varus, 1.00+2.83 degrees of valgus, and 0.95+2.58 degrees of varus, respectively. Slope was 6.78+3.23 degrees, 3.23+3.21 degrees, and 3.93+2.85 degrees, respectively. Patellar tilt was 2.15+3.51 degrees lateral, 1.73+2.67 degres lateral, and 1.03+2.28 degrees lateral, respectively. The joint line was raised 1.18+3.54 mm and 0.05+4.92 mm in Groups I and III, respectively, and lowered 0.33+4.78 mm in Group II. There were no statistically significant differences in any measurement between any groups. Discussion. Satisfactory alignment can be achieved with either mechanical guides or navigation systems. MIS approaches do not worsen alignment with either alignment methodology. Whether having fewer outliers translates into improved clinical outcomes remains to be seen. More importantly, CAS provides an intraoperative tool that may allow more accurate reproduction of a customized plan for an individual, rather than simply attempting to achieve the “mean” for a population. Again, the value of achieving such a goal is unknown since the threshold for improvement with off-the-shelf knee components may have already been maximised.
Unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee (UKA) is technically challenging because the prosthetic devices must function in concert with a mostly normal joint. Malalignment is common, leading to patient dissatisfaction and early failures. However, UKA remains attractive as a temporizing treatment in early disease. Until now, resurfacing UKAs were performed with free-hand techniques. This study is only the second report investigating the use of a tactile guidance system (TGS—essentially, a robotically assisted surgery) for the performance of UKA. Methods. The first 20 patients who underwent resurfacing using a Mako Surgical Inc. TGS system by a single surgeon were studied. Surgical goals were to place the components to replicate closely the patient’s native bony architecture. The surgical plan was completed on a workstation, and then executed with the TGS system through a mini-arthrotomy. Stelkast, Inc resurfacing components were implanted with methymethacrylate. Intraoperative measurements of component position were obtained. Pre- and postoperative radiographs were also measured for alignment correction, change in angulation of the joint line relative to the femoral and tibial anatomic axes, femoral component alignment relative to the femoral anatomic axis, and change in tibial slope.
Intraoperative measurements showed an average femoral component position of 0.89+3.36 degrees of varus relative to the mechanical axis, with 62.5% being varus and 37.5% being valgus. The average femoral component flexion was 11.1+2.11 degrees, with no outliers (less than 5 degrees; greater than 15 degrees). The tibial component position was 4.60+1.76 degrees of varus, with all components in varus as desired. There was an average of 5.00+2.37 degrees of slope, with 25% outliers (less than 3 or greater than 7 degrees). Postoperative measurements showed an overall limb alignment correction of 4.29+2.60 degrees, femoral joint line change of only 0.43+0.49 degrees, and an overall component alignment relative to the anatomic axis of 4.54+3.77 degrees of valgus. On the tibial side, the joint line varus was corrected by 3.00+2.04 degrees and the slope was changed by 4.29+3.24 degrees, including 19% outliers (less than 3 degrees, more than 7 degrees). However, 33% of the outliers were outliers preoperatively as well. Interestingly, the bone level after resection on the tibial side averaged 5.36+3.00 degrees of varus, suggesting that component placement must be carefully watched.