Literature DB >> 23340836

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

Patrick Weber1, Alexander Crispin, Florian Schmidutz, Sandra Utzschneider, Matthias F Pietschmann, Volkmar Jansson, Peter E Müller.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Inaccurate implantation rates of up to 30 % have been reported in cases using the conventional technique for implantation of a unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Navigation should permit a more precise implantation, and several studies have investigated its role, albeit with a limited number of patients and inconsistent results. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare risks of unsatisfactory outcomes in patients with navigated and conventional technique.
METHODS: An electronic search was performed, and ten studies were eligible and included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 258 prostheses implanted with the navigated technique and 295 with the conventional one. The following items were analysed: radiological positioning of the femoral and the tibial component in the AP and lateral view, radiological analysis of the tibiofemoral mechanical axis and the difference in operating time between the two groups. Relative risks (RR) were calculated from the reported percentages of implants outside the optimal ranges defined by the manufacturers or the study groups. Natural logarithms of the relative risks were pooled by means of random effects models.
RESULTS: For all the analysed radiological parameters, the RR of measurements outside the optimal ranges were less than 1 in the navigation group suggesting a reduction in the risk of outliers with navigation. The average operating time in the navigated group was 15.4 min (95 % CI: 10.2-20.6) longer than in the conventional group.
CONCLUSION: The meta-analysis shows that the use of navigation systems in UKA leads to a more precise component position. Whether the more accurate position in UKA results in a better clinical outcome or long-term survival is yet unknown. Nevertheless, as a precise implant position appears to be beneficial, the use of navigation should be recommended for UKA. The limits defined by the manufacturers for an optimal positioning are not consistent.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23340836     DOI: 10.1007/s00167-013-2370-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc        ISSN: 0942-2056            Impact factor:   4.342


  39 in total

1.  Minimally invasive unicompartmental knee replacement with a nonimage-based navigation system.

Authors:  L Perlick; H Bäthis; M Tingart; C Perlick; C Lüring; J Grifka
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2004-03-06       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  [Does increased tibial slope reduce the wear rate of unicompartmental knee prostheses? An in vitro investigation].

Authors:  P Weber; C Schröder; S Utzschneider; F Schmidutz; V Jansson; P E Müller
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  [Medial unicompartmental knee replacement using the "Oxford Uni" meniscal bearing knee].

Authors:  P R Aldinger; M Clarius; D W Murray; J W Goodfellow; S J Breusch
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  [Minimally invasive unicondylar knee replacement with computer navigation].

Authors:  R G Haaker; M Wojciechowski; P Patzer; R E Willburger; M Senkal; M Engelhardt
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 1.087

5.  The rationale for navigated minimally invasive unicompartmental knee replacement.

Authors:  Jean-Yves Jenny; Eugen Ciobanu; Cyril Boeri
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Postoperative limb alignment and its determinants after minimally invasive Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Arun B Mullaji; Gautam M Shetty; Raj Kanna
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2011-04-16       Impact factor: 4.757

Review 7.  Does computer-assisted surgery improve postoperative leg alignment and implant positioning following total knee arthroplasty? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials?

Authors:  Tao Cheng; Song Zhao; Xiaochun Peng; Xianlong Zhang
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-07-06       Impact factor: 4.342

8.  A second decade lifetable survival analysis of the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Andrew J Price; Ulf Svard
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Postoperative morbidity and mortality following total knee arthroplasty with computer navigation.

Authors:  James A Browne; Chad Cook; Aaron A Hofmann; Michael P Bolognesi
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2009-09-15       Impact factor: 2.199

10.  Clinical Outcomes After Computer-assisted Versus Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Chunming Xie; Kai Liu; Luxin Xiao; Rong Tang
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 1.390

View more
  29 in total

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

Authors:  Katherine P MacCallum; Jonathan R Danoff; Jeffrey A Geller
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2015-10-06

2.  Long-term survival is similar between closed-wedge high tibial osteotomy and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients with similar demographics.

Authors:  Sang Jun Song; Dae Kyung Bae; Kang Il Kim; Cheol Hee Park
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2019-02-04       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 3.  [Focal femoral resurfacing and unicompartmental knee replacement : Between osteotomy and total knee replacement].

Authors:  Philipp Henle; Matthias J Feucht; Christian Stärke
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2021-04-13       Impact factor: 1.087

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

Review 5.  Navigated "small implants" in knee reconstruction.

Authors:  Norberto Confalonieri; Alessio Biazzo; Pietro Cerveri; Chris Pullen; Alfonso Manzotti
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-09-15       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  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

Review 7.  Current state of computer navigation and robotics in unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jelle P van der List; Harshvardhan Chawla; Leo Joskowicz; Andrew D Pearle
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-09-06       Impact factor: 4.342

8.  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

9.  Improved positioning of the tibial component in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with patient-specific cutting blocks.

Authors:  M L Dao Trong; C Diezi; G Goerres; N Helmy
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-01-17       Impact factor: 4.342

10.  Patient-specific positioning guides do not consistently achieve the planned implant position in UKA.

Authors:  Justin A M J van Leeuwen; Stephan M Röhrl
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-08-12       Impact factor: 4.342

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.