Evaluation of Implant Positioning Alignment in Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a kind of minimally invasive surgery (MIS), which has relatively small scarring, short recovery time, and greater postoperative range of motion. UKA has therefore become the trend of arthroplasty in recent years, and it has been widely accepted by patients with unilateral joint damage. However, there are problems under the surging demands for UKA, such as the selection of patients, knee prostheses and surgical method. Because these factors have great impacts on the surgical outcomes, it is critical to explore the influence of unicompartmental knee prostheses (UKP) in various alignments. This study employs the finite element analysis (FEA) to evaluate the effects of UKP on the polyethylene (PE) components in various implant alignments, and thus provides further information for clinical practices. The results show that UKP has considerable impact upon the wear of the PE tibial components under conditions such as joints overuse, overweight or undercorrection of varus deformity. In addition, this study evaluates the angle after correction of the varus deformity, and results show that the angle should be less than 10deg, otherwise the wear of the lateral side of the PE tibial components will increase and thus shorten the expectancy of joint protheses.

[1]  J B Morrison,et al.  The mechanics of the knee joint in relation to normal walking. , 1970, Journal of biomechanics.

[2]  A Seireg,et al.  The prediction of muscular lad sharing and joint forces in the lower extremities during walking. , 1975, Journal of biomechanics.

[3]  C. B. Hovey,et al.  A computer model to simulate patellar biomechanics following total knee replacement: the effects of femoral component alignment. , 2001, Clinical biomechanics.

[4]  P. Keblish,et al.  Surgical techniques in the performance of unicompartmental arthroplasties , 1998 .

[5]  G Vardi,et al.  Early complications of unicompartmental knee replacement: the Droitwich experience. , 2004, The Knee.

[6]  P. Hernigou,et al.  Alignment Influences Wear in the Knee after Medial Unicompartmental Arthroplasty , 2004, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[7]  J. B. Morrison Function of the knee joint in various activities. , 1969, Biomedical engineering.

[8]  Gerard Deschamps,et al.  Posterior slope of the tibial implant and the outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. , 2004, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[9]  Stefano Zaffagnini,et al.  Minimally Invasive Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty in Varus Knee , 2004 .

[10]  Richard Iorio,et al.  Unicompartmental Arthritis of the Knee , 2003, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[11]  T P Andriacchi,et al.  Functional analysis of cemented medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. , 1996, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[12]  Morrison Jb Function of the knee joint in various activities. , 1969 .

[13]  H Bergenudd,et al.  Porous-coated anatomic unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in osteoarthritis. A 3- to 9-year follow-up study. , 1995, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[14]  M P Kadaba,et al.  Measurement of lower extremity kinematics during level walking , 1990, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[15]  T. Andriacchi,et al.  A study of lower-limb mechanics during stair-climbing. , 1980, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[16]  P Cartier,et al.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty surgery. 10-year minimum follow-up period. , 1996, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[17]  T Q Lee,et al.  Patellar component positioning in total knee arthroplasty. , 1999, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[18]  D. Fisher,et al.  Implant position in knee surgery: a comparison of minimally invasive, open unicompartmental, and total knee arthroplasty. , 2003, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[19]  Richard Iorio,et al.  Current concepts review unicompartmental arthritis of the knee , 2003 .