The purpose of this study is to evaluate accuracy of tibia cutting and tibia implantation in UKA which used navigation system for tibia cutting and tibia component implantation, and to evaluate clinical results.

We performed 72 UKAs using navigation system from November, 2012. This study of 72 knees included 56 females and 16 males with an average operation age of 74.2 years and an average body mass index (BMI) of 24.8 kg/m2. The diagnosis was osteoarthritis (OA) in 67 knees and osteonecrosis (ON) in 5 knees. The UKA (Oxford partial knee microplasty, Biomet, Warsaw, IN) was used all cases. We evaluated patients clinically using the Japanese orthopaedic association (JOA) score, range of motion (ROM), operation time, the amount of bleeding and complications. Patients were evaluated clinically at preoperation and final follow up in JOA score and ROM. As an radiologic examination, we evaluated preoperative and postoperative lower limb alignment in FTA (femoro-tibial angle) by weightbearing long leg antero-posterior alignment view X-rays. Also we evaluated a tibial component implantation angle by postoperative CT, and tibia cutting angle by intraoperative navigation system. We defined the tibial angle which a tibia functional axis and the tibia component made in coronal plane, also tibial posterior slope angle which a tibia axis and tibia component made in sagittal plane by CT. We measured tibial angle and tibial posterior slope angle by 3D template system.

We performed UKA in all cases mini-midvastus approach. At first we performed osteotomy of the proximal medial tibia using CT-Free navigation. At this procedure we performed osteotomy to do re-cut if check did cutting surface in navigation, and there was cutting error (>3°), and then to do check again in navigation. Next we did not use navigation and went the osteotomy of the distal femur with an IM rod and drill guide of microplasty system. And then we performed a trial and decided bearing gap and moved to cementing. At first we went cementing of the tibia component. At this procedure we went to drive implant again if check did implant surface in navigation, and there was implantation error(>3°), and to do check. We checked did tibia cutting, tibia implantation carefully in navigation. In addition, We sterilize a clips and use it came to be in this way possible for the check of the first osteotomy side exactly.

ROM was an average of 122.7° of preoperation became an average of 128.2° at final follow up, and JOA score was an average of 50.5 points of preoperation improved an average of 86.6 points at final follow up after UKA. An average of the operation time was 94 minutes, an average of the amount of bleeding was 137.7ml, and complications were one proximal type deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and one pin splinter joining pain by navigation, .Asetic loosening(tibial component) was one case, and this conversed the TKA.

In the radiologic evaluation, FTA was an average of 182.1° of preoperation corrected an average of 175.9°after UKA. In other words, an average of 6.2° were corrected by UKA. The tibia component implantation angle was an average of 90.18° in a measurement by the CT after UKA, intoraoperative tibia component implantation angle was an average of 90.32° in a measurement by the navigation system. These two differences did not accept the significant difference at an average of 1.33°.(P=0.5581). Similarly, the posterior slope angle were as follow; average of 5.65°by CT and average of 5.75°by navigation. These two differences did not accept the significant difference at an average of 1.33°. (P=0.6475)

Discussion: We performed UKA using navigation and evaluated the implantation accuracy for tibia osteotomy, tibia implantation. They were good alignment with an average of 90.18°, and outliers more than 3° were two cases(2.8%). It will be necessary to examine long-term progress including clinical results complications in future. We are performed UKA now in femur side using PSI(patient specific instruments) and tbia side using Navigation.