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).
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Borus T, Thornhill T (2008) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 16(1):9–18
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
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
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
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
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
Bellemans J, Vandenneucker H, Vanlauwe J (2007) Robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 464:111–116. doi:10.1097/BLO.0b013e318126c0c022
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
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
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
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-015-1708-0