PURPOSE: This study aimed to examine the accuracy of tibial implant alignment using an accelerometer-based portable navigation system in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). METHODS: This retrospective matched case-control study reviewed 51 UKAs performed using an accelerometer-based portable navigation system, matched with 51 UKAs performed using conventional extramedullary rods. Coronal alignment and posterior slope of the tibial implant were measured on postoperative radiographs, and differences from preoperative planning were examined. Outliers and accuracy of tibial implant alignment were compared between the portable navigation and conventional groups using Fisher's exact test and Mann-Whitney U test, respectively. RESULTS: In the portable navigation group, 100% of the implants were aligned within 3.0° of both target coronal and sagittal implant alignment. In the conventional group, 76.5% and 88.2% of the implants were within 3.0° of both target coronal and sagittal implant alignment. Statistical analysis revealed that outliers of coronal and sagittal alignment were significantly less in the portable navigation group than in the conventional group (P < 0.05). In addition, the absolute value difference between postoperative measurement and preoperative planning of both coronal and sagittal alignment was significantly smaller in the portable navigation group than in the conventional group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The portable navigation system improved the accuracy of tibial implant alignment in UKA. We found that 100% of the implants were aligned within 3.0° of both target coronal and sagittal implant alignment. The portable navigation system decreased the outliers of tibial coronal and sagittal alignment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective case-control study, Level III.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to examine the accuracy of tibial implant alignment using an accelerometer-based portable navigation system in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). METHODS: This retrospective matched case-control study reviewed 51 UKAs performed using an accelerometer-based portable navigation system, matched with 51 UKAs performed using conventional extramedullary rods. Coronal alignment and posterior slope of the tibial implant were measured on postoperative radiographs, and differences from preoperative planning were examined. Outliers and accuracy of tibial implant alignment were compared between the portable navigation and conventional groups using Fisher's exact test and Mann-Whitney U test, respectively. RESULTS: In the portable navigation group, 100% of the implants were aligned within 3.0° of both target coronal and sagittal implant alignment. In the conventional group, 76.5% and 88.2% of the implants were within 3.0° of both target coronal and sagittal implant alignment. Statistical analysis revealed that outliers of coronal and sagittal alignment were significantly less in the portable navigation group than in the conventional group (P < 0.05). In addition, the absolute value difference between postoperative measurement and preoperative planning of both coronal and sagittal alignment was significantly smaller in the portable navigation group than in the conventional group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The portable navigation system improved the accuracy of tibial implant alignment in UKA. We found that 100% of the implants were aligned within 3.0° of both target coronal and sagittal implant alignment. The portable navigation system decreased the outliers of tibial coronal and sagittal alignment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective case-control study, Level III.