Skip to main content
Log in

Tibial baseplate positioning in robotic-assisted and conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

  • Original Article • KNEE - ARTHROPLASTY
  • Published:
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study compared tibial baseplate alignment (TBA) between robotic-arm-assisted (RAA) and conventional (CONV) unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKAs). We hypothesized that RAA would increase the percentage of implants within a predetermined safe zone (SZ). We identified 177 CONV and 87 RAA UKAs through our center’s patient registry. Two individuals reviewed postoperative knee radiographs and determined TBA. Coronal baseplate positioning was more accurate (i.e., within the SZ) for RAA (2.6° ± 1.5° vs. 3.9° ± 2.4°, p < 0. 0001). Conversely, sagittal alignment was more accurate for CONV (4.9° ± 2.8° vs. 2.4° ± 1.6°, p < 0.0001). RAA was more precise in both planes (p < 0.0001). There was no difference in the percentage of implants within the SZ between the two groups (p = 1.0).

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

Access this article

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Newman JH, Ackroyd CE, Shah NA (1998) Unicompartmental or total knee replacement? Five-year results of a prospective, randomised trial of 102 osteoarthritic knees with unicompartmental arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80(5):862–865

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Newman J, Pydisetty RV, Ackroyd C (2009) Unicompartmental or total knee replacement: the 15-year results of a prospective randomised controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91(1):52–57. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.91B1.20899

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Berger RA, Meneghini RM, Jacobs JJ, Sheinkop MB, Della Valle CJ, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO (2005) Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum of ten years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(5):999–1006. doi:10.2106/JBJS.C.00568

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Argenson JN, Chevrol-Benkeddache Y, Aubaniac JM (2002) Modern unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cement: a three to ten-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-A(12):2235–2239

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chatellard R, Sauleau V, Colmar M, Robert H, Raynaud G, Brilhault J, Societe d’Orthopedie et de Traumatologie de lO (2013) Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: does tibial component position influence clinical outcomes and arthroplasty survival? OTSR 99(4 Suppl):S219–S225. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2013.03.004

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Collier MB, Eickmann TH, Sukezaki F, McAuley JP, Engh GA (2006) Patient, implant, and alignment factors associated with revision of medial compartment unicondylar arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 21(6 Suppl 2):108–115. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2006.04.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hernigou P, Deschamps G (2004) Posterior slope of the tibial implant and the outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A(3):506–511

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kerens B, Schotanus MG, Boonen B, Kort NP (2014) No radiographic difference between patient-specific guiding and conventional Oxford UKA surgery. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. doi:10.1007/s00167-014-2849-09

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Yoo JH, Chang CB, Shin KS, Seong SC, Kim TK (2008) Anatomical references to assess the posterior tibial slope in total knee arthroplasty: a comparison of 5 anatomical axes. J Arthroplast 23(4):586–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Weber P, Crispin A, Schmidutz F, Utzschneider S, Pietschmann MF, Jansson V, Müller PE (2013) Improved accuracy in computer-assisted unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21(11):2453–2461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. van Strien T, Kaptein B, van Erkel A, Valstar E, Nelissen R (2009) Computer assisted versus conventional cemented total knee prostheses alignment accuracy and micromotion of the tibial component. Int Orthop 33(5):1255–1261

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Squire MW, Callaghan JJ, Goetz DD, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC (1999) Unicompartmental knee replacement. A minimum 15 year followup study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 367:61–72

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Steele RG, Hutabarat S, Evans RL, Ackroyd CE, Newman JH (2006) Survivorship of the St Georg Sled medial unicompartmental knee replacement beyond ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88(9):1164–1168. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.88B9.18044

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Foran JR, Brown NM, Della Valle CJ, Berger RA, Galante JO (2013) Long-term survivorship and failure modes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(1):102–108. doi:10.1007/s11999-012-2517-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Saragaglia D, Picard F, Refaie R (2012) Navigation of the tibial plateau alone appears to be sufficient in computer-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 36(12):2479–2483

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Borus T, Thornhill T (2008) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 16(1):9–18

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sawatari T, Tsumura H, Iesaka K, Furushiro Y, Torisu T (2005) Three-dimensional finite element analysis of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty–the influence of tibial component inclination. J Orthop Res 23(3):549–554. doi:10.1016/j.orthres.2004.06.00717

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Nunley RM, Nam D, Johnson SR, Barnes CL (2014) Extreme variability in posterior slope of the proximal tibia: measurements on 2395 CT scans of patients undergoing UKA? J Arthroplast 29(8):1677–1680. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2014.03.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Valenzuela GA, Jacobson NA, Geist DJ, Valenzuela RG, Teitge RA (2013) Implant and limb alignment outcomes for conventional and navigated unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 28(3):463–468. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2012.09.00119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cossey AJ, Spriggins AJ (2005) The use of computer-assisted surgical navigation to prevent malalignment in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 20(1):29–34. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2004.10.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Goradia VK (2014) Computer-assisted and robotic surgery in orthopedics: where we are in 2014. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 22(4):202–205. doi:10.1097/JSA.0000000000000047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bellemans J, Vandenneucker H, Vanlauwe J (2007) Robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 464:111–116. doi:10.1097/BLO.0b013e318126c0c022

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Conditt MA, Roche MW (2009) Minimally invasive robotic-arm-guided unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(Suppl 1):63–68. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.01372

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gothesen O, Slover J, Havelin L, Askildsen JE, Malchau H, Furnes O (2013) An economic model to evaluate cost-effectiveness of computer assisted knee replacement surgery in Norway. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 14:202. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-14-202

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey A. Geller.

Ethics declarations

This study received no funding. Dr. Geller reports personal fees from Smith & Nephew plc, outside the submitted work and is a member of the editorial and governing boards of CORR and JOA as well as a board member for AHHKS. Drs. MacCallum and Danoff have nothing to disclose. All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee under the protocol number AAAN5454. Informed consent was waived for this study by the institutional research committee.

Conflict of interest

Drs. MacCallum and Danoff report no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Dr. Geller reports personal fees from Smith and Nephew plc, outside the submitted work, and being a member of the editorial and governing boards of CORR and JOA and a board member for AAHKS.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

MacCallum, K.P., Danoff, J.R. & Geller, J.A. Tibial baseplate positioning in robotic-assisted and conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 26, 93–98 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-015-1708-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-015-1708-0

Keywords

Navigation