The extramedullary (EM) tensor tools and surgical technique were developed to orient cutting guides for the implantation of the M/G unicompartmental prosthesis with greater ease and accuracy and to reduce the surgical morbidity of this limited reconstruction. Unicompartmental knee replacement attempts to reduce pain and improve function by restoring the extremity’s alignment and the joint’s soft tissue balance with the positioning of an implant limited to that compartment. All unicompartmental implants, be they monoblock wafers, mobile bearing devices, or fixed articular prostheses, must effect this restoration to enjoy whatever success they may provide.
Various surgical techniques for their implantation are available. Instrument systems without direct linkage of the femoral and tibial cuts require intuitive estimates. With such a technique, the implant must, in effect, be retrofitted. The cuts are made and then a device of a given volume and width is chosen that best fits the flexion and extension gaps created. Those cuts were not predetermined for a given implant and thus are approximations. Approximations can work well should there be unlimited prosthetic sizes from which to choose.
Total Knee Arthroplasty Femoral Component High Tibial Osteotomy Mechanical Axis Posterior Condyle
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access
Caillouette JT. Fat embolism syndrome following the intramedullary alignment guide in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990; 251: 198–199PubMedGoogle Scholar
Kolettis GT. Safety of one-stage bilateral total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1994; 309: 102–109PubMedGoogle Scholar
Hasegawa Y, Opishi Y, Shimizu T. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for medial gonarthrosis: 5 to 9 years follow-up evaluation of 77 knees. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg [Germany] 1998; 117(4–5): 183–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray DW, Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ. The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a ten-year survival study. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 1998; 80(6): 983–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman JW, Ackroyd DE, Shah NA. Unicompartmental or total knee replacement? Five-year results of a prospective, randomized trial of 102 osteoarthritic knees with unicompartmental arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 1998; 80(5): 862–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabor OB Jr, Tabor OB. Unicompartmental arthroplasty; a long-term follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 1998; 13(4): 373–379CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Marmor L. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: ten to thirteen year follow-up study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988; 226: 14PubMedGoogle Scholar
Scott RD. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1991; 271: 96–100PubMedGoogle Scholar
Berger RA, Nedeff DD, Barden RM, et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: clinical experience at 6- to10-year follow up. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1999; 367: 50–60CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Argenson JN, Chevrol-Benkeddache Y, Aubniac JM. Modern cemented metal-backed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a 3 to 10 year follow-up study. 68th annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 2001Google Scholar
Pennington DW, Swienckowski JJ, Lutes WB. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients sixty years of age or younger. J Bone Joint Surg 2003; 85A: 1968–1973Google Scholar