Patient-specific implants for lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

PurposeThe lateral compartment of the knee is biomechanically and anatomically different from the medial compartment. Most commercially available unicompartmental implants are not designed specifically for the lateral compartment. Patient-specific custom-made unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) are designed to provide optimal fit on both femoral and tibial surfaces. This study aimed to determine if the use of patient-specific lateral unicompartmental implants provide better bone coverage than standard, off-the-shelf commercially available unicompartmental implants in lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasties. As a secondary question, we wished to determine if patient-specific unicompartmental implants provide good clinical outcomes in surgical treatment of lateral unicompartmental osteoarthritis.MethodsWe prospectively evaluated 33 patients who underwent lateral unicompartmental arthroplasty using patient-specific implants and instrumentation with a minimum of 24 months of follow-up. We analysed bone coverage observed in plain radiographs in 33 patient-specific lateral unicompartmental arthroplasties and compared to 20 lateral unicompartmental arthroplasties performed with commercially-available, standard off-the-shelf unicondylar implants.ResultsThe mean tibial implant lateral coverage mismatch in the patient-specific implant group was 1.0 mm (S.D. 1.2, range 0–5.7 mm ) versus 3.3 mm (S.D. 2.43, range 0.4–7.8 mm) in the conventional implant group (p < 0.01). In the patient specific cohort, pre-operative limb alignment was 3.3 (valgus) and post-operative limb alignment was −0.9 (varus). The Knee Society score improved from 48 (S.D. 16.2) to 95 (S.D. 7.6). Survivorship in the patient-specific implant group was 97% at an average follow up of 37 months, versus 85% at a follow-up period of 32 months for the standard implant group.ConclusionsPatient-specific lateral unicompartmental knee replacements demonstrated better tibial coverage and provide excellent short-term clinical and radiological results as compared to a standard lateral UKA.

[1]  R. Scott Lateral unicompartmental replacement: a road less traveled. , 2005, Orthopedics.

[2]  A. Lombardi,et al.  Lateral Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Through a Lateral Parapatellar Approach Has High Early Survivorship , 2012, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[3]  David FitzPatrick,et al.  Statistical design of unicompartmental tibial implants and comparison with current devices. , 2007, The Knee.

[4]  Mohammad Atarod Pilambaraei,et al.  A safe overhang limit for unicompartmental knee arthroplasties based on medial collateral ligament strains: an in vitro study. , 2013, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[5]  R. Scott,et al.  Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty through a medial approach. Surgical technique. , 2008, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[6]  B. Rath,et al.  Evaluation of implant position and knee alignment after patient-specific unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. , 2011, The Knee.

[7]  P. Neyret,et al.  Lateral Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Relieves Pain and Improves Function in Posttraumatic Osteoarthritis , 2012, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[8]  P. Neyret,et al.  Tibial component rotation assessment using CT scan in medial and lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. , 2011, Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research : OTSR.

[9]  G. Scuderi**,et al.  The Practice of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty in the United Kingdom , 2010, Journal of orthopaedic surgery.

[10]  Donald W Pennington,et al.  Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: survivorship and technical considerations at an average follow-up of 12.4 years. , 2006, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[11]  D J Beard,et al.  Tibial component overhang following unicompartmental knee replacement--does it matter? , 2009, The Knee.

[12]  Wolfgang Fitz,et al.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with use of novel patient-specific resurfacing implants and personalized jigs. , 2009, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[13]  D. Dennis,et al.  In Vivo Fluoroscopic Analysis of the Normal Human Knee , 2003, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[14]  K. Bachus,et al.  Effect of the tibial cut on subsidence following total knee arthroplasty. , 1991, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[15]  Mensch Js,et al.  Knee morphology as a guide to knee replacement. , 1975 .

[16]  A. Jones,et al.  Radiographic patterns and associations of osteoarthritis of the knee in patients referred to hospital. , 1993, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[17]  T. Heyse,et al.  Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a review , 2010, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.

[18]  K. Bachus,et al.  Analysis of the bone surface area in resected tibia. Implications in tibial component subsidence and fixation. , 1994, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[19]  O. Mahoney,et al.  Overhang of the femoral component in total knee arthroplasty: risk factors and clinical consequences. , 2010, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[20]  H. Gill,et al.  Localization of the full‐thickness cartilage lesions in medial and lateral unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis , 2009, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.