INTRODUCTION:. Despite clear clinical advantages Unicompartimetal Knee Replacement still remain an high demanding and less forgiving surgical procedure. Different Authors in literature pointed out how malalignment increases the rate of aseptic failure even more than in TKR. Computer-assisted surgery has been proposed to improve implant positioning in joint replacement surgery with no need of intramedullary guide despite no still proven clinical advantages. Likewise more recently Patient Specific Instrumentation (PSI) has been suggested, even in partial knee reconstruction, as a new technology capable of new advantages such as shorter surgical times and lower blood losses maintaining at least the same accuracy. Aim of the study is to present a prospective study comparing 2 groups of UKR s using either a computer assisted technique or a CT-based Patient Specific Instrumentation. MATERIALS AND METHODS:. Since January 2010, 54 patients undergoing UKR because medial compartment arthritis were enrolled in the study prospectively. Before surgery patients were alternatively assigned to either computer-assisted alignment (group A) or patient specific instrumentation group (group B). In the group A (27 knees) the implant (Sigma, Depuy Orthopaedics Inc, Warsaw, Indiana, USA) was positioned using a CT-free computer assisted alignment system specifically created for UKR surgery (OrthoKey, Delaware, USA). In group B (27 knees) the implant (GMK Uni, Medacta, Castel San Pietro, Switzerland) was performed using a CT-based PSI technology (MyKnee, Medacta, Castel San Pietro, Switzerland). In both the groups all the implants were cemented and using always a fixed metal backed tibial component. The surgical time and complications were documented in all cases. Six months post-operatively the patients underwent to the same radiological investigation to determine the frontal femoral component angle (FFC), the frontal tibial component angle (FTC), the hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA) and the sagittal orientation (slope) of tibial/femoral components. The number and percentage of outliners for each parameter was determined. In addition the percentage of patients in each group with all 5 parameters within the desired range was calculated. Furthermore the 2 groups were clinically assessed using KSS and Functional score. RESULTS:. There were no differences in the clinical outcome. The mean surgical time was longer in the navigated group of a mean of 5.9 minutes without any statistical differences in complications. The mechanical axes, tibial slope the FTC angle were significantly better aligned in the navigated group. A statistically significant higher number of outliners was seen in the PSI group. The number of implants with all 5 radiological parameters aligned within the desired range was statistically higher in the navigated group. All the implants in the navigated group were correctly aligned in all the planned parameters. Discussion:. To our knowledge this is the first prospective study in literature assessing navigation compared to PSI technique in UKR surgery. Despite a slight not significant longer surgical time in the navigated group, at a short follow-up the results could not demonstrate any clinical differences between the 2 technologies However according to their results the Authors indicate navigation as more helpful in UKR surgery compared to PSI technology in terms of accuracy

Introduction. The importance of frontal and rotational alignment in total knee arthroplasty has been published. Together with conventional instrumentation, computer navigation has been used for many years now. The pro's and con's of navigation are well known since. Materials & Methods. We present the results of our first 200 total knee arthroplasties with a Patient Specific Instrument System, called Signature (Biomet). With this system an MRI of the hip, knee and ankle is performed. Based on these images, mechanical axis and rotational landmarks are decided. Preoperative planning and templating is done with a computer program. Alignment, rotation, slope, size, positioning and gaps are planned with the software. Based on this templating a femoral guide and a tibial guide are custom made (Materialise) for each patient that will allow only one unique fit and position. Both of these guides are no cutting guides but pinning guides. From that stage on Vanguard Total Knee (Biomet) is implanted with this system applying conventional surgical techniques and rules. Preoperative alignment was measured on standing full leg X-rays. Rotational alignment was set according to the epicondylar axis. Slope was by default fixed at 3° posterior slope. Femoral flexion was set at 3° by default. Sizing was done with the system. Tourniquet time, blood loss, mean Hb drop and lateral release rate as hospital stay were analyzed. Postoperative full leg X-rays and CT scan were analyzed. Results. Preoperative alignment range between 18° varus and 19° valgus. Sizing was accurate in 82% of cases. Postoperative alignment was accurate in 90% of cases with a range between 0° and 2°. The 2° of varus was often seen on a standing full leg but not on the lying CT scan. Our normal range of alignment is +/− 3°. Rotational alignment was better in valgus knees in the PSI group. Tourniquet time was 10 minutes shorter. The blood loss was dramatically reduced since intramedullary canals were not violated. Mean Hb drop was 1,2 g/dl. No lateral releases were performed. Hospital stay was 5 days (return to home). Extra cost was MRI and guides for a total of 500 euros. Conclusions. Patient specific templating gives excellent results both clinically and radiographically. OR time is reduced resulting in cost reduction. Avoiding IM rods will reduce blood loss and possible bone marrow embolisation. Especially in minimally invasive valgus knees this system is advantageous, helping in femoral rotational and tibial alignment. Signature allows to apply conventional surgical techniques with navigation-like control on the cuts

INTRODUCTION. Despite clear clinical advantages Unicompartimetal Knee Replacement (UKR) still remain a high demanding and less forgiving surgical procedure. Different Authors in literature pointed out how in coronal tibial malalignment beyond 3° as well as tibial slope beyond 7° increase the rate of aseptic failure. Likewise, overcorrection in the coronal plain is a well recognised cause of failure because of an overweighting on the controlateral compartment. Furthermore it has been shown how in UKR surgery even using short narrow intramedullary guide this can cause errors in both coronal planes. Computer assisted surgery has been proposed to improve implant positioning in joint replacement surgery with no need of intramedullary guide. Likewise more recently Patient Specific Instrumentation (PSI) has been suggested as a new technology capable of new advantages such as shorter surgical times and lower blood losses maintaining at least the same accuracy. Aim of this prospective study is to present comparing 2 groups of UKRs using either a computer assisted technique or a CT based PSI. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Since January 2010 54 patients undergoing UKR because of medial compartment arthritis were prospectively enrolled in the study. Before surgery patients were alternatively assigned to either computer-assisted alignment (group A) or PSI group (group B). In the group A (27 knees) the implant (Sigma, Depuy Orthopaedics Inc, Warsaw, Indiana, USA) was positioned using a CT-free computer assisted alignment system specifically created for UKR surgery (OrthoKey, Delaware, USA USA). In group B (27knees) the implant (GMK uni, Medacta, Castel San Pietro, Switzerland) was performed using a CT-Based PSI technology (MyKnee, Medacta, Castel San Pietro, Switzerland). In both the groups all the implants were cemented and using always a fixed metal backed tibial component. The duration of surgery and all the complications according to Kim classification were documented in all cases. Six months after surgery each patient had long-leg standing anterior-posterior radiographs and lateral radiographs of the knee. The radiographs were assessed to determine the Frontal Femoral Component angle (FFC), the Frontal Tibial Component angle (FTC), the Hip-Knee-Ankle angle (HKA) and the sagittal orientation (slope) of both tibial and femoral component. The number and percentage of outliners for each parameter was determined. In addition the percentage of patients from each group with all 5 parameters within the desired range was calculated. Furthermore at the latest follow-up the 2 groups were clinically assessed using KSS and Functional score. RESULTS. At the last assessments there were no differences in the clinical outcome. The mean surgical time was longer in the navigated group of a mean of 5.9 minutes without any statistical differences in complications. The mechanical axis, tibial slope the FTC angle were significantly better aligned in the navigated group. A statistically significant higher number of outliners was seen in the PSI group. The number of implants with all 5 radiological parameters aligned within the desired range was statistically higher in the navigated group. All the implants in the navigated group were correctly aligned in all the planned parameters. DISCUSSION. To our knowledge this is the first prospective study in literature assessing navigation compared to PSI technique in UKR surgery. Despite a slight not significant longer surgical time in the navigated group, at a short follow-up the results could not demonstrate any clinical diffences between the 2 technologies However according to their results the Authors indicate navigation as more helpful in UKR surgery compared to PSI technology in terms of accuracy