PURPOSE: The revision of unicompartmental knee replacements (UKRs) to total knee replacements (TKRs) using computer navigation is a little-known technique. The principal objective of this study was to analyse the radiological position of implants in revision of UKR to TKR comparing the results of surgery aided by computer navigation (CAS) with conventional surgery (CS). Our hypothesis was that computer navigation would improve the position of the implants. METHODS: This is a retrospective single surgeon series. Forty-six patients (46 knees) with an average age 73 ± eight years (53-93) between January 1995 and December 2014 were included. The two groups were made up of 23 patients each and are comparable in terms of age, sex, side of surgery, age of the UKR, cause of failure and HKA angle before surgery. All patients were reviewed by two independent observers. RESULTS: In the CAS group, the average hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle was 179.2 ± 2.2° (175-184°). The average medial tibial mechanical angle (TMA) was 88.4 ± 1.6° (84-90°) and the medial femoral mechanical angle (FMA) was 91 ± 2° (87- 94°). The tibial slope was 88.7 ± 1.1° (87-90°). In the CS group, the average HKA angle was 179.9 ± 1.9° (175-183°), the TMA was on average 89.1 ± 1.3° (87-93°) and the FMA was 90.6 ± 1.5° (87-93°). The tibial slope was 87.8 ± 4.9° (85-95°). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups on any of the radiological parameters studied. CONCLUSIONS: Our radiological target of a post-operative HKA angle of 180 ± 3° was obtained in 87.5% of cases in the CS group and 92.4% of cases in the CAS group. This slight difference in favour of the computer-assisted group was not statistically significant, and we cannot therefore confirm our initial hypothesis, at least in the hands of an experienced surgeon. However, the quality of the results in the CAS group suggest that this technique could provide precious assistance to less experienced surgeons performing this surgery.
PURPOSE: The revision of unicompartmental knee replacements (UKRs) to total knee replacements (TKRs) using computer navigation is a little-known technique. The principal objective of this study was to analyse the radiological position of implants in revision of UKR to TKR comparing the results of surgery aided by computer navigation (CAS) with conventional surgery (CS). Our hypothesis was that computer navigation would improve the position of the implants. METHODS: This is a retrospective single surgeon series. Forty-six patients (46 knees) with an average age 73 ± eight years (53-93) between January 1995 and December 2014 were included. The two groups were made up of 23 patients each and are comparable in terms of age, sex, side of surgery, age of the UKR, cause of failure and HKA angle before surgery. All patients were reviewed by two independent observers. RESULTS: In the CAS group, the average hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle was 179.2 ± 2.2° (175-184°). The average medial tibial mechanical angle (TMA) was 88.4 ± 1.6° (84-90°) and the medial femoral mechanical angle (FMA) was 91 ± 2° (87- 94°). The tibial slope was 88.7 ± 1.1° (87-90°). In the CS group, the average HKA angle was 179.9 ± 1.9° (175-183°), the TMA was on average 89.1 ± 1.3° (87-93°) and the FMA was 90.6 ± 1.5° (87-93°). The tibial slope was 87.8 ± 4.9° (85-95°). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups on any of the radiological parameters studied. CONCLUSIONS: Our radiological target of a post-operative HKA angle of 180 ± 3° was obtained in 87.5% of cases in the CS group and 92.4% of cases in the CAS group. This slight difference in favour of the computer-assisted group was not statistically significant, and we cannot therefore confirm our initial hypothesis, at least in the hands of an experienced surgeon. However, the quality of the results in the CAS group suggest that this technique could provide precious assistance to less experienced surgeons performing this surgery.
Authors: F Chatain; S Denjean; J-L Delalande; H Chavane; J Bejui-Hugues; O Guyen Journal: Orthop Traumatol Surg Res Date: 2012-08-29 Impact factor: 2.256
Authors: Matthias F Pietschmann; Andreas Ficklscherer; Lisa Wohlleb; Florian Schmidutz; Volkmar Jansson; Peter E Müller Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2014-06-02 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Thomas Gicquel; Jean Christophe Lambotte; Jean Louis Polard; Mickael Ropars; Denis Huten Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2016-06-30 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Sebastian P Boelch; Joerg Arnholdt; Boris M Holzapfel; Axel Jakuscheit; Maximilian Rudert; Maik Hoberg Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2018-05-22 Impact factor: 3.075