PURPOSE: The lateral compartment of the knee is biomechanically and anatomically different from the medial compartment. Most commercially available unicompartmental implants are not designed specifically for the lateral compartment. Patient-specific custom-made unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) are designed to provide optimal fit on both femoral and tibial surfaces. This study aimed to determine if the use of patient-specific lateral unicompartmental implants provide better bone coverage than standard, off-the-shelf commercially available unicompartmental implants in lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasties. As a secondary question, we wished to determine if patient-specific unicompartmental implants provide good clinical outcomes in surgical treatment of lateral unicompartmental osteoarthritis. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated 33 patients who underwent lateral unicompartmental arthroplasty using patient-specific implants and instrumentation with a minimum of 24 months of follow-up. We analysed bone coverage observed in plain radiographs in 33 patient-specific lateral unicompartmental arthroplasties and compared to 20 lateral unicompartmental arthroplasties performed with commercially-available, standard off-the-shelf unicondylar implants. RESULTS: The mean tibial implant lateral coverage mismatch in the patient-specific implant group was 1.0 mm (S.D. 1.2, range 0-5.7 mm ) versus 3.3 mm (S.D. 2.43, range 0.4-7.8 mm) in the conventional implant group (p < 0.01). In the patient specific cohort, pre-operative limb alignment was 3.3 (valgus) and post-operative limb alignment was -0.9 (varus). The Knee Society score improved from 48 (S.D. 16.2) to 95 (S.D. 7.6). Survivorship in the patient-specific implant group was 97% at an average follow up of 37 months, versus 85% at a follow-up period of 32 months for the standard implant group. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-specific lateral unicompartmental knee replacements demonstrated better tibial coverage and provide excellent short-term clinical and radiological results as compared to a standard lateral UKA.
PURPOSE: The lateral compartment of the knee is biomechanically and anatomically different from the medial compartment. Most commercially available unicompartmental implants are not designed specifically for the lateral compartment. Patient-specific custom-made unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) are designed to provide optimal fit on both femoral and tibial surfaces. This study aimed to determine if the use of patient-specific lateral unicompartmental implants provide better bone coverage than standard, off-the-shelf commercially available unicompartmental implants in lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasties. As a secondary question, we wished to determine if patient-specific unicompartmental implants provide good clinical outcomes in surgical treatment of lateral unicompartmental osteoarthritis. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated 33 patients who underwent lateral unicompartmental arthroplasty using patient-specific implants and instrumentation with a minimum of 24 months of follow-up. We analysed bone coverage observed in plain radiographs in 33 patient-specific lateral unicompartmental arthroplasties and compared to 20 lateral unicompartmental arthroplasties performed with commercially-available, standard off-the-shelf unicondylar implants. RESULTS: The mean tibial implant lateral coverage mismatch in the patient-specific implant group was 1.0 mm (S.D. 1.2, range 0-5.7 mm ) versus 3.3 mm (S.D. 2.43, range 0.4-7.8 mm) in the conventional implant group (p < 0.01). In the patient specific cohort, pre-operative limb alignment was 3.3 (valgus) and post-operative limb alignment was -0.9 (varus). The Knee Society score improved from 48 (S.D. 16.2) to 95 (S.D. 7.6). Survivorship in the patient-specific implant group was 97% at an average follow up of 37 months, versus 85% at a follow-up period of 32 months for the standard implant group. CONCLUSIONS:Patient-specific lateral unicompartmental knee replacements demonstrated better tibial coverage and provide excellent short-term clinical and radiological results as compared to a standard lateral UKA.
Authors: Aashish Gulati; Ryan Chau; David J Beard; Andrew J Price; Harinderjit S Gill; David W Murray Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Joost A Burger; Laura J Kleeblad; Inger N Sierevelt; Wieger G Horstmann; Peter A Nolte Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2019-01-28 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Xuezhi Lin; Xingling Xiao; Yimeng Wang; Cheng Gu; Canbin Wang; Jiahui Chen; Han Liu; Juan Luo; Tao Li; Di Wang; Shicai Fan Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-02-22 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Joerg Arnholdt; Yama Kamawal; Boris Michael Holzapfel; Axel Ripp; Maximilian Rudert; Andre Friedrich Steinert Journal: Arch Med Sci Date: 2018-10-23 Impact factor: 3.318