Abstract
In the beginning of this century, a new ideal of a renewed, less invasive, reconstructive surgery began to grow in the whole orthopedic world, moving firstly from USA. Likewise, minimally invasive total knee replacement is growing in popularity because of faster recoveries, theoretical reduced blood losses, and reduced economical costs [1–3]. Nevertheless, economical pressures by companies interested in an increasing market have played an important role in developing these new trends. However, less-invasive surgery has been often identified both by surgeons and manufacturers as requiring shorter surgical approaches to implant the same prostheses used with traditional approaches, performing the so called “key-hole surgery” even with new potential risks (malalignment, avulsions, and local wound problems). More recently, different authors recommend caution toward these mini-incision techniques in total joint replacement [4, 5].
Keywords
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 via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Haas SB, Cook S, Beksac B (2004) Minimally invasive total knee replacement through a mini midvastus approach: a comparative study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 428:8–73
Laskin RS (2005) Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty: the results justify its use. Clin Orthop Relat Res 440:54–9
Lonner JH (2006) Minimally invasive approaches to total knee arthroplasty: results. Am J Orthop 35 (7 Suppl):27–33
Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr (2005) Avoiding the potential pitfalls of minimally invasive total knee surgery. Orthopedics 28(11):1326–30
Dalury DF, Dennis DA (2005) Mini-incision total knee arthroplasty can increase risk of component malalignment. Clin Orthop Rel Res 440:77–81
Confalonieri N, Manzotti A (2006) Tissue-sparing surgery with the bi-unicompartmental knee prosthesis: retrospective study with minimum follow-up of 36 months J Orthopaed Traumatol 7:108–112
Banks SA, Frely BJ, Boniforti F, Reischmidt C, Romagnoli S (2005) Comparing in vivo kinematics of unicondylar and bi-unicondylar knee replacement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 13:551–6
Fuchs S, Tibesku CO, Frisse D, Genkinger m, Laaß H, Rosenbaum D (2005) Clinical and functional of uni-and bicondylar sledge prostheses. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 13:197–202
Andriacchi TP, Andersson GB, Fermier RW, Stern D, Galante JO (1980) A study of lower-limb mechanics during stair-climbing. J Bone Joint Surg Am 62(5):749–57
Weale AE, Halabi OA, Jones PW, White SH (2001) Perceptions of out-comes after unicompartmental and total knee replacements. Clin Orthop 382:143–153
Eickmann TH, Collier MB, Sukezaki F, McAuley JP, Engh GA (2006) Survival of medial unicondylar arthroplasties placed by one surgeon 1984-1998. Clin Orthop Relat Res 17:167–175
O’Rourke MR, Gardner JJ, Callaghan JJ, Liu SS, Goetz DD, Vittetoe DA, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC (2005) The John Insall Award: unicompartmental knee replacement: a minimum twenty-one-year followup, end-result study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 440:27–37
Swienckowski JJ, Pennington DW (2004) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients sixty years of age or younger. J Bone Joint Surg 86-A Suppl 1(Pt 2):131–42
Swanson AB, Swanson GD, Powers T, Khalil MA, Maupin BK, Mayhew DE, Moss SH (1985) Unicompartmental and bicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee with a finned metal tibial-plateau implant. J Bone Joint Surg Am 67(8):1175–82
Goodfellow JW, O’Connor J (1986) Clinical results of the Oxford knee. Surface arthroplasty of the tibiofemoral joint with a meniscal bearing prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 205:21–42
Lewallen DG, Bryan RS, Peterson LF (1984) Polycentric total knee arthroplasty. A ten-year followup study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 66(8):1211–8
Confalonieri N, Manzotti A, Cerveri P, De Momi E (2009) Bi-unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty: a matched paired study with early clinical results. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 129(9):1157–63
Heyse TJ, Khefacha A, Cartier P (2010) UKA in combination with PFR at average 12-year follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 130(10):1227–30
Parratte S, Pauly V, Aubaniac JM, Argenson JN (2010) Survival of bicompartmental knee arthroplasty at 5 to 23 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(1):64–72
Tria AJ Jr (2010) Bicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee.Instr Course Lect 59:61–73
Morrison TA, Nyce JD, Macaulay WB, Geller JA (2011) Early adverse results with bicompartmental knee arthroplasty a prospective cohort comparison to total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 26(6 Suppl): 35–9
Köck FX, Weingärtner D, Beckmann J, Anders S, Schaumburger J, Grifka J, Lüring C (2011) Operative treatment of the unicompartmental knee arthritis-results of a nationwide survey in 2008. Z Orthop Unfall 149(2):153–9
Huang TW, Hsu WH, Peng KT, Wen-Wei Hsu R, Weng YJ, Shen WJ (2011) Total knee arthroplasty with use of computer-assisted navigation compared with conventional guiding systems in the same patient: radiographic results in asian patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(13):1197–202
Zhang GQ, Chen JY, Chai W, Liu M, Wang Y (2011) Comparison between computer-assisted-navigation and conventional total knee arthroplasties in patients undergoing simultaneous bilateral procedures: a randomized clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(13):1190–6
Khan MM, Khan MW, Al-Harbi HH, Weening BS, Zalzal PK (2011) Assessing short-term functional outcomes and knee alignment of computer-assisted navigated total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty [Epub ahead of print]
Pang HN, Yeo SJ, Chong HC, Chin PL, Ong J, Lo NN (2011) Computer-assisted gap balancing technique improves outcome in total knee arthroplasty, compared with conventional measured resection technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19(9):1496–503
Konyves A, Willis-Owen CA, Spriggins AJ (2010) The long-term benefit of computer-assisted surgical navigation in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res 31:94
Jung KA, Kim SJ, Lee SC, Hwang SH, Ahn NK (2010) Accuracy of implantation during computer-assisted minimally invasive Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a comparison with a conventional instrumented technique. Knee 17(6):387–91
Jenny JY (2005) Navigated unicompartmental knee replacement. Orthopedics 28 (10 Suppl): s1263–7
Confalonieri N, Manzotti A (2005) Computer Assisted bi-unicompartimental knee replacement. Int J Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery 1(4):1–6
Lonner JH (2009) Modular bicompartmental knee arthroplasty with robotic arm assistance. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 38(2 Suppl):28–3
Stiehl JB, Komistek RD, Cloutier JM, Dennis DA (2000) The cruciate ligaments in total knee arthroplasty: a kinematic analysis of 2 total knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 15(5):545–50
Cloutier JM, Sabouret P, Deghrar A (1999) Total knee arthroplasty with retention of both cruciate ligaments. A nine to eleven-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81(5):697–702
Engh GA (2007) A bicompartimental solution: what the Deuce? Orthopedics 30:770
Rolston L, Bresh J, Engh GA, Alois F, Kreuzer S, Nadaudad M, Puri L, Wood D (2007) Bicompartimental knee arthroplasty: a bone-sparing, ligament sparing, and minimally invasive alternative for active patients. Orthopedics 30(8 Suppl):70–3
Palumbo BT, Henderson ER, Edwards PK, Burris RB, Gutiérrez S, Raterman SJ (2011) Initial experience of the journey-deuce bicompartmental knee prosthesis a review of 36 cases. J Arthroplasty 26(6 Suppl):40–5
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Italia
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Confalonieri, N., Manzotti, A. (2013). Tissue-Sparing Surgery (TSS) and Computer-Assisted Surgery (CAS) in Knee Reconstruction: Bi-Unicompartmental vs Total Knee Arthroplasty. In: Confalonieri, N., Romagnoli, S. (eds) Small Implants in Knee Reconstruction. Springer, Milano. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-2655-1_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-2655-1_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Milano
Print ISBN: 978-88-470-2654-4
Online ISBN: 978-88-470-2655-1
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)