Literature DB >> 19945880

Accuracy of implantation during computer-assisted minimally invasive Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a comparison with a conventional instrumented technique.

Kwang Am Jung1, Sung Jae Kim, Su Chan Lee, Seung Hyun Hwang, Nong Kyoum Ahn.   

Abstract

The prognosis of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is strongly associated with the accuracy of the component alignment. To determine the accuracy of navigated UKA during primary minimally invasive Oxford UKA, twenty-nine knees of 29 consecutive patients (Group A) implanted using conventional instrumented UKA were followed by 23 knees of 17 consecutive patients (Group B) implanted by navigation assisted UKA and radiological results regarding alignments of the femorotibial mechanical axis, femur, and tibial component were compared in the two groups. Assessments of mechanical limb alignment revealed statistically significant increases in mechanical limb alignment post-operatively in both groups (p=0.0 for both). In terms of component alignment, Group B had more prostheses implanted in the satisfactory range (> ± 3° from the targeted values) for the femoral and tibial components than Group A. There were no significant differences in the rate of prosthesis implanted within the range of radiographic alignment variations for the coronal implantation of either femoral or tibial components in both groups. (Radiographic alignment variation; coronal orientation of femoral components 90 ± 10°, sagittal orientation of femoral components 90 ± 5°, coronal orientation of tibial components from 10° varus to 5° valgus, sagittal orientation of tibial components from 7° of posterior tibial flexion to 5° of anterior tibial flexion). However, significant increases in the accuracies of sagittal implantation of femoral and tibial components were observed in Group B versus Group A. Our data suggest that navigated implantation improves the accuracy of the radiological implantation of the Oxford UKA prosthesis without increasing complications versus conventional UKA.
Copyright © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19945880     DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2009.11.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Knee        ISSN: 0968-0160            Impact factor:   2.199


  18 in total

1.  Accuracy of Individualized Custom Tibial Cutting Guides in UKA.

Authors:  Thomas J Heyse; Joseph D Lipman; Carl W Imhauser; Scott M Tucker; Yogesh Rajak; Geoffrey H Westrich
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2014-09-09

2.  Navigation of the tibial plateau alone appears to be sufficient in computer-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Dominique Saragaglia; Frédéric Picard; Ramsay Refaie
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-10-16       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  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

4.  Is tibial cut navigation alone sufficient in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty? Continuous series of fifty nine procedures.

Authors:  Thomas Gicquel; Jean Christophe Lambotte; Jean Louis Polard; Mickael Ropars; Denis Huten
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-06-30       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Computerised navigation of unicondylar knee prostheses: from primary implantation to revision to total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Dominique Saragaglia; Benoit Marques Da Silva; Pierrick Dijoux; Jérémy Cognault; Julia Gaillot; Régis Pailhé
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-09-28       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Utilization and Short-Term Outcomes of Computer Navigation in Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Christopher N Carender; David E DeMik; Nicholas A Bedard; Alan G Shamrock; Qiang An; Timothy S Brown
Journal:  Iowa Orthop J       Date:  2020

7.  Patient-specific instrumentation in Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is reliable and accurate except for the tibial rotation.

Authors:  B Kerens; A M Leenders; M G M Schotanus; B Boonen; W E Tuinebreijer; P J Emans; B Jong; N P Kort
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-12-27       Impact factor: 4.342

8.  Superior alignment but no difference in clinical outcome after minimally invasive computer-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (MICA-UKA).

Authors:  Zhenxiang Zhang; Wei Zhu; Lixian Zhu; Yaqing Du
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-11-26       Impact factor: 4.342

9.  No radiographic difference between patient-specific guiding and conventional Oxford UKA surgery.

Authors:  Bart Kerens; Martijn G M Schotanus; Bert Boonen; Nanne P Kort
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-01-26       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 10.  2D versus 3D fluoroscopy-based navigation in posterior pelvic fixation: review of the literature on current technology.

Authors:  Savyasachi C Thakkar; Rashmi S Thakkar; Norachart Sirisreetreerux; John A Carrino; Babar Shafiq; Erik A Hasenboehler
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2016-08-08       Impact factor: 2.924

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.