Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Computer-Assisted Unicompartmental Knee Replacement: Technique and Results

  • Chapter
Small Implants in Knee Reconstruction

  • 1018 Accesses

Abstract

Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) has become increasingly popular after the development of minimally invasive techniques [1]. The question of adequate indications for UKR has been extensively debated, although a consensus has yet to be accepted in the literature. Furthermore, this procedure was previously considered as more demanding than total knee replacement (TKR), especially because the instrumentation was not as accurate as that for TKR.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Borus T, Thornhill T (2007) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 15:9–18

    Google Scholar 

  2. Marmor L (1982) The Marmor knee replacement. Orthop Clin North Am 13:55–64

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Cartier P, Cheaib S (1987) Unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2:157–162

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Jenny JY, Boeri C (2002) Accuracy of implantation of a unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with 2 different instrumentations: a case-controlled comparative study. J Arthroplasty 17:1016–1020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hernigou P, Deschamps G (1996) Prothèses unicompartimentales du genou. Rev Chir Orthop 82 Suppl 1:23–60

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hernigou P, Deschamps G (2004) Alignment influences wear in the knee after medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 423:161–165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Scott RD (2006) Three decades of experience with unicompartmental arthroplasty: mistakes made and lesssons learned. Orthopaedics 29:829–831

    Google Scholar 

  8. Mercier N, Wimsey S, Saragaglia D (2010) Long-term clinical results of the Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 34:1137–1143

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Neyret P, Chatain F, Deschamps G (1996) Matériel et options dans les prothèses unicompartimentales du genou. Rev Chir Orthop 82 Suppl 1:48–52

    Google Scholar 

  10. Jenny JY, Boeri C (2001) Implantation d’une prothèse totale de genou assistée par ordinateur. Etude comparative cas-témoin avec une instrumentation traditionnelle. Rev Chir Orthop 87:645–652

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Saragaglia D, Picard F, Chaussard C, Montbarbon E, Leitner F, Cinquin P (2001) Mise en place des prothèses totale du genou assistée par ordinateur: comparaison avec la technique conventionnelle. A propos d’une étude prospective randomisée de 50 cas. Rev Chir Orthop 87:18–28

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ayach A, Plaweski S, Saragaglia D (2009) Computer-assisted uni knee arthroplasty for genu varum deformity. Results of axial correction in a case-control study of 40 cases. 9th annual meeting of CAOS-International proceedings. WingSpan, Livermore, CA, pp 4–7

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cossey AJ, Spriggins J (2005) The use of computer-assisted surgical navigation to prevent malalignment in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 20:29–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Jenny JY, Boeri C (2003) Unicompartmental knee prosthesis implantation with a non-imaged-based navigation system: rationale, technique, case-control comparative study with a conventional instrumented implantation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 11:40–45

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Jenny JY (2008) Navigated unicompartmental knee replacement. Sports Med Arthrosc rev 16:103–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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 17:387–391

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Perlick L, Bäthis H, Tingart M, Perlick C, Lüring C, Grifka J (2004) Minimally invasive unicompartmental knee replacement with a nonimage-based navigation system. Int Orthop 28:193–197

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Rosenberger RE, Fink C, Quirbach S, Attal R, Tecklenburg K, Hoser C (2008) The immediate effect of navigation on implant accuracy in primary mini-invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16:1133–1140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Jenny JY, Ciobanu E, Boeri C (2007) The rationale for navigated minimally invasive unicompartmental knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 463:58–62

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jenny JY, Saussac F, Louis P (2011) Navigated, minimal invasive, mobile bearing unicompartmental knee prosthesis. A 2-year follow-up study. Paper presented at the 12th EFORT Meeting (European Federation of Orthopedic and Traumatology Societies), Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  21. Larsson SE, Larsson S, Lundkvist S (1988) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 232:174–181

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ridgeway SR, McAuley JP, Ammeen DJ, Engh GA (2002) The effect of alignment of the knee on the outcome of unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84:351–355

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Seon JK, Song EK, Park SJ, Yoon TR, Lee KB, Jung ST (2009) Comparison of minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with or without a navigation system. J Arthroplasty 24:351–357

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lim MH, Tallay A, Bartlett J (2009) Comparative study of the use of computer-assisted navigation system for axial correction in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17:341–346

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Price AJ, Webb J, Topf H, Dodd CAF, Goodfellow JW, Murray DW (2001) Rapid recovery after Oxford unicompartmental arthroplasty through a short incision. J Arthroplasty 16:970–976

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Romanowski MR, Repicci JA (2002) Minimally invasive unicondylar arthroplasty: eight-year follow-up. J Knee Surg 15:17–22

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Haas SB, Cook S, Beksac B (2004) Minimally invasive total knee replacement through a mini midvastus approach: a comparative study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 428:68–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Muller PE, Pellengahr C, Witt M, Kircher J, Refior HJ, Jansson V (2004) Influence of minimally invasive surgery on implant positioning and the functional outcome for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 19:296–301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Reilly KA, Beard DJ, Barker KL, Dodd CA, Price AJ, Murray DW (2005) Efficacy of an accelerated recovery protocol for Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. A randomised controlled trial. Knee 12:351–357

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr, Mallory TH, Adams JB, Groseth KL (2005) Early failure of minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is associated with obesity. Clin Orthop Relat Res 440:60–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hamilton WG, Collier MB, Tarabee E, McAuley JP, Engh CA Jr, Engh GA (2006) Incidence and reasons for reoperation after minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 21:98–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre de Chirurgie Orthopédique et de la Main, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Illkirch, France

    Jean Yves Jenny

Authors
  1. Jean Yves Jenny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dominique Saragaglia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean Yves Jenny .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopedic, Traumatology and Hand Surgery Department, CTO Hospital, Milan, Italy

    Norberto Confalonieri

  2. Galeazzi Orthopedic Institute, Milan, Italy

    Sergio Romagnoli

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Italia

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jenny, J.Y., Saragaglia, D. (2013). Computer-Assisted Unicompartmental Knee Replacement: Technique and Results. In: Confalonieri, N., Romagnoli, S. (eds) Small Implants in Knee Reconstruction. Springer, Milano. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-2655-1_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-2655-1_8

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Milano

  • Print ISBN: 978-88-470-2654-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-88-470-2655-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation