All Title Author
Keywords Abstract


Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Perspective from Computer Assisted Navigation

DOI: 10.4236/ijcm.2013.46A004, PP. 20-22

Keywords: Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty, Computer Assisted Navigation Surgery, Unicompartmental Arthritis

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty (UKA) is an established procedure for the treatment of unicompartmental arthritis. Success depends on a clear understanding of the principles and kinematics of the knee. Restoration of the physiological axis and soft tissue balancing is the key to a successful outcome. We outline the basic principles of UKA and the role of computer assisted surgery in achieving these goals.

References

[1]  A. J. Price, et al., “Ten-Year in Vivo Wear Measurement of a Fully Congruent Mobile Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty,” The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, Vol. 87, No. 11, 2005, pp. 1493-1497. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.87B11.16325
[2]  D. W. Murray, J. W. Goodfellow and J. J. O’Connor, “The Oxford Medial Un-icompartmental Arthroplasty: A Ten-Year Survival Study,” The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, Vol. 80, No. 6, 1998, pp. 983-989. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.80B6.8177
[3]  U. C. Svard and A. J. Price, “Oxford Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. A Survival Analysis of an Independent Series,” The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, Vol. 83, No. 2, 2001, pp. 191-194. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.83B2.10966
[4]  J. L. Rees, et al., “Minimally Invasive Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Arthrop-lasty: Functional Results at 1 Year and the Effect of Surgical Inexperience,” Knee, Vol. 11, No. 5, 2004, pp. 363-367. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2003.12.006
[5]  D. A. Fisher, M. Watts and K. E. Davis, “Implant Position in Knee Surgery: A Com-parison of Minimally Invasive, Open Unicompartmental, and Total Knee Arthroplasty,” Journal of Arthroplasty, Vol. 18, Suppl. 1, 2003, pp. 2-8. doi:10.1016/S0883-5403(03)00291-2
[6]  G. Keene, D. Simpson and Y. Kalairajah, “Limb Alignment in Comput-er-Assisted Minimally-Invasive Unicompartmental Knee Re-placement,” The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, Vol. 88, No. 1, 2006, pp. 44-48. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.88B1.16266
[7]  H. P. Hsu, et al., “Effect of Knee Component Alignment on Tibial Load Distri-bution with Clinical Correlation,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, Vol. 248, 1989, pp. 135-144.
[8]  D. B. Kettelkamp and A. W. Jacobs, “Tibiofemoral Contact Area—Determination and Implications,” The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, Vol. 54, No. 2, 1972, pp. 349-356.
[9]  P. Car-tier, “Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty,” 1997.
[10]  D. Paley and K. Tetsworth, “Mechanical Axis Deviation of the Lower Limbs. Preoperative Planning of Multiapical Frontal Plane Angular and Bowing Deformities of the Femur and Tibia,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, Vol. 280, 1992, pp. 65-71.
[11]  R. W. Hsu, et al., “Normal Axial Alignment of the Lower Extremity and Load-Bearing Distribution at the Knee,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, Vol. 255, 1990, pp. 215-227.
[12]  L. Perlick, et al., “Minimally Invasive Unicompartmental Knee Replacement with a Nonimage-Based Navigation System,” International Orthopaedics, Vol. 28, No. 4, 2004, pp. 193-197.
[13]  J. Y. Jenny and C. Boeri, “Unicompartmental Knee Prosthesis Implantation with a Non-Image-Based Navigation System: Rationale, Technique, Case-Control Comparative Study with a Conventional Instru-mented Implantation,” Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2003, pp. 40-45.

Full-Text

comments powered by Disqus