Literature DB >> 17824338

Minimally invasive implantation and computer navigation for a unicondylar knee system.

Klaus Buckup1, Lars-Christoph Linke, Volker Hahne.   

Abstract

Clinical results of unicondylar knee arthroplasty can be improved by combining minimally invasive surgical techniques with computer-assisted navigation, according to results reported in the literature. The surgeons surveyed 23 patients who underwent a minimally invasive procedure and 15 patients who underwent a minimally invasive procedure with the use of computer-assisted navigation. The surgeons performed both minimally invasive surgical implantations using the Accuris unicondylar knee arthroplasty (onlay technique; Smith & Nephew, Memphis, Tenn) and the BrainLAB VectorVision uni-knee-system (Brain LAB, Inc, Westchester, Ill). Reported results showed significant improvement of the mechanical leg axis after a minimally invasive surgical procedure (range: 5.23 degrees-0.77 degrees) and a computer-assisted operation (range: 4.18 degrees-0.54 degrees). No significant change of slope and average angle of the implant in relation to the longitudinal tibial axis was reported. The study attempts to show that computer navigation used in minimally invasive unicondylar knee arthroplasty can improve positioning and axis calibration.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17824338

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Orthopedics        ISSN: 0147-7447            Impact factor:   1.390


  7 in total

1.  Navigation did not improve the precision of minimally invasive knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Peter M Bonutti; Daniel A Dethmers; Mike S McGrath; Slif D Ulrich; Michael A Mont
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-07-10       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Improved accuracy in computer-assisted unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Patrick Weber; Alexander Crispin; Florian Schmidutz; Sandra Utzschneider; Matthias F Pietschmann; Volkmar Jansson; Peter E Müller
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2013-01-23       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  Common causes of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a single-centre analysis of four hundred and seventy one cases.

Authors:  Mustafa Citak; Kathrin Dersch; Atul F Kamath; Carl Haasper; Thorsten Gehrke; Daniel Kendoff
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-01-09       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Assessment of accuracy of robotically assisted unicompartmental arthroplasty.

Authors:  Ali Mofidi; Johannes F Plate; Bo Lu; Michael A Conditt; Jason E Lang; Gary G Poehling; Riyaz H Jinnah
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-04-18       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Implant orientation accuracy of a hand-held robotic partial knee replacement system over conventional technique in a cadaveric test.

Authors:  Rahul Khare; Branislav Jaramaz; Brian Hamlin; Kenneth L Urish
Journal:  Comput Assist Surg (Abingdon)       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 1.787

6.  Accuracy of tibial component positioning in the robotic arm assisted versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jai Thilak; Mohan Thadi; Prajwal P Mane; Anubhav Sharma; Vipin Mohan; Balu C Babu
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2020-08-31

7.  Robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty can reduce radiologic outliers compared to conventional techniques.

Authors:  Kwan Kyu Park; Chang Dong Han; Ick-Hwan Yang; Woo-Suk Lee; Joo Hyung Han; Hyuck Min Kwon
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-12-03       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.