Thomas Gicquel1,2, Jean Christophe Lambotte3, Jean Louis Polard3, Mickael Ropars3,4,5, Denis Huten3. 1. Rennes University Hospital, 2 rue Henri Le Guilloux, 35033, Rennes Cedex 9, France. thomas.gicquel2@chu-rennes.fr. 2. Faculté de Médecine, University Rennes 1, 2 Avenue du Professeur Léon Bernard, 35043, Rennes Cedex, France. thomas.gicquel2@chu-rennes.fr. 3. Rennes University Hospital, 2 rue Henri Le Guilloux, 35033, Rennes Cedex 9, France. 4. Faculté de Médecine, University Rennes 1, 2 Avenue du Professeur Léon Bernard, 35043, Rennes Cedex, France. 5. M2S Laboratory, University Rennes 2-Ecole Normale Superieure Cachan, Avenue Robert Schuman, 35170, Bruz, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Our purpose was to assess medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with navigation alone for the tibial cut and limb alignment. We hypothesised that this technique could be used routinely in practice. METHODS: Outcome measures were tibial cut orientation and residual varus. Six-month post-operative radiographs of 59 knees were assessed. RESULTS: Tibial cut orientation was within 2° of planned in 70.2 and 76.3 % of knees in the coronal and sagittal planes, respectively (49.1 % in both), within 4° in 91.2 and 91.5 %, respectively (82.5 % in both). All coronal-plane errors were in varus. Excessive planed tibial slope was at risk of excessive varus of the tibial cut. The hip-knee-ankle angle was ≤179° in 81.4 % and the mechanical axis through Kennedy Zone 2 in 59.3 % of knees. Risk factors for inadequate varus were pre-operative hip-knee-ankle angle >176° and strictly articular varus. CONCLUSIONS: Our results are not as good as previously reported with this technique, but taking into account the factors of failure identified, we could enhance the results.
PURPOSE: Our purpose was to assess medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with navigation alone for the tibial cut and limb alignment. We hypothesised that this technique could be used routinely in practice. METHODS: Outcome measures were tibial cut orientation and residual varus. Six-month post-operative radiographs of 59 knees were assessed. RESULTS: Tibial cut orientation was within 2° of planned in 70.2 and 76.3 % of knees in the coronal and sagittal planes, respectively (49.1 % in both), within 4° in 91.2 and 91.5 %, respectively (82.5 % in both). All coronal-plane errors were in varus. Excessive planed tibial slope was at risk of excessive varus of the tibial cut. The hip-knee-ankle angle was ≤179° in 81.4 % and the mechanical axis through Kennedy Zone 2 in 59.3 % of knees. Risk factors for inadequate varus were pre-operative hip-knee-ankle angle >176° and strictly articular varus. CONCLUSIONS: Our results are not as good as previously reported with this technique, but taking into account the factors of failure identified, we could enhance the results.