Can accuracy of component alignment be improved with Oxford UKA Microplasty® instrumentation?

Autor: Ng JP; Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Alice Ho Miu Ling Nethersole Hospital, 11 Chuen On Road, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR., Fan JCH; Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Alice Ho Miu Ling Nethersole Hospital, 11 Chuen On Road, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR. fch029@ha.org.hk., Lau LCM; Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Alice Ho Miu Ling Nethersole Hospital, 11 Chuen On Road, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR., Tse TTS; Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Alice Ho Miu Ling Nethersole Hospital, 11 Chuen On Road, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR., Wan SYC; Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Alice Ho Miu Ling Nethersole Hospital, 11 Chuen On Road, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR., Hung YW; Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Alice Ho Miu Ling Nethersole Hospital, 11 Chuen On Road, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research [J Orthop Surg Res] 2020 Aug 26; Vol. 15 (1), pp. 354. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Aug 26.
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-020-01868-3
Abstrakt: Background: One factor in the long-term survivorship of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is the accuracy of implantation. In addition to implant designs, the instrumentation has also evolved in the last three decades to improve the reproducibility of implant placement. There have been limited studies comparing mobile bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with contemporary instrumentation and fixed bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with conventional instrumentation. This study aims to determine whether the Microplasty instrumentation in Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty allows the surgeon to implant the components more precisely and accurately.
Methods: A total of 150 patients (194 knees) were included between April 2013 and June 2019. Coronal and sagittal alignment of the tibial and femoral components was measured on postoperative radiographs. Component axial rotational alignment was measured on postoperative computer tomography. The knee rotation angle was the difference between the femoral and tibial axial rotation. A rotational mismatch was defined as a knee rotation angle of > 10°. Statistical analysis was performed using Student t test and Mann-Whitney nonparametric test. A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant in each analysis.
Results: Between April 2013 to June 2019, 112 patients (150 knees) received Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, one patient (2 knees) had Journey unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, and 37 patients (42 knees) received Zimmer unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. All femoral components in the Oxford group were implanted within the reference range, compared with 36.6% in the fixed bearing group (p < 0.001). 88.3% of Oxford knees had tibial component falling within the reference range, whereas 56.1% of knees in the fixed bearing group fell within the reference range (p < 0.001). 97.5% of Oxford knees had tibial slope that fell within reference range, whereas 53.7% fell within range for fixed bearing group (p < 0.001). Femorotibial rotational mismatch of more than 10° was noted in 13.8% in Oxford group and 20.5% in fixed bearing group (p = 0.04).
Conclusion: In conclusion, Microplasty instrumentation for Oxford mobile bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is more accurate and precise compared to conventional fixed bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in sagittal, coronal, and axial alignment. Prospective studies with long-term follow-up are warranted to investigate the clinical implications.
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje