APPLICATION OF COMPUTER-ASSISTED TECHNOLOGY IN ANALYSIS OF REVISION REASON OF UNICOMPARTMENTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY_Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery

Authors：

JIADi ,  LIYanlin , WANGGuoliang , GAOHuanyu , YUYang

Department of Sports Medicine, the First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming Yunnan, 650032, P. R. China;

Corresponding author：

LIYanlin, Email: 852387873@qq.com

Keywords：

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty; Computer-assisted technology; Revision

DOI：

10.7507/1002-1892.20160024

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To conclude the revision reason of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) using computer-assisted technology so as to provide reference for reducing the revision incidence and improving the level of surgical technique and rehabilitation. Method The relevant literature on analyzing revision reason of UKA using computer-assisted technology in recent years was extensively reviewed. Results The revision reasons by computer-assisted technology are fracture of the medial tibial plateau, progressive osteoarthritis of reserved compartment, dislocation of mobile bearing, prosthesis loosening, polyethylene wear, and unexplained persistent pain. Conclusions Computer-assisted technology can be used to analyze the revision reason of UKA and guide the best operating method and rehabilitation scheme by simulating the operative process and knee joint activities.

Citation： JIADi, LIYanlin, WANGGuoliang, GAOHuanyu, YUYang. APPLICATION OF COMPUTER-ASSISTED TECHNOLOGY IN ANALYSIS OF REVISION REASON OF UNICOMPARTMENTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY. Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery, 2016, 30(1): 119-122. doi: 10.7507/1002-1892.20160024 Copy

1.	Lyons MC, MacDonald SJ, Somerville LE, et al. Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty database analysis:is there a winner? Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2012, 470(1) :84-90.
2.	Heyse TJ, Lipman JD, Imhauser CW, et al. Accuracy of individualized custom tibial cutting guides in UKA. HSS J, 2014, 10(3) :260-265.
3.	Martinez-Carranza N, Weidenhielm L, Crafoord J, et al. Deviation between navigated and final 3-dimensional implant position in mini-invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty:a pilot study in 13 patients. Acta Orthop, 2012, 83(6) :625-628.
4.	Lonner JH, John TK, Conditt MA. Robotic arm-assisted UKA improves tibial component alignment:a pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2010, 468(1) :141-146.
5.	Masjedi M, Jaffry Z, Harris S, et al. Protocol for evaluation of robotic technology in orthopedic surgery. Adv Orthop, 2013. doi:10.1155/2013/194683.
6.	Steklov N, Slamin J, Srivastav S, et al. Unicompartmental knee resurfacing:enlarged tibio-femoral contact area and reduced contact stress using novel patient-derived geometries. Open Biomed Eng J, 2010, (4) :85-92.
7.	Lee HW, Kim SJ, Kang KT, et al. The effect of tibial posterior slope on contact force and ligaments stresses in posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty-explicit finite element analysis. Knee Surg Relat Res, 2012, 24(2) :91-98.
8.	Pegg EC, Walter J, Mellon SJ, et al. Evaluation offactors affecting tibial bone strain after unicompartmental knee replacement. J Orthop Res, 2013, 31(5) :821-828.
9.	Iesaka K, Tsumura H, Sonoda H, et al. The effects of tibial component inclination on bone stress after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Biomech, 2002, 35(7) :969-974.
10.	Saldanha KA, Keys GW, Svard UC, et al. Revision of Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty-results of a multicentre study. Knee, 2007, 14(4) :275-279.
11.	Beard DJ, Pandit H, Gill HS, et al. The influence of the presence and severity of pre-existing patellofemoral degenerative changes on the outcome of the Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Br), 2007, 89(12) :1597-1601.
12.	Price AJ, Svard U. A second decade lifetable survival analysis of the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2011, 469(1) :174-179.
13.	Zambianchi F, Digennaro V, Giorgini A, et al. Surgeon's experience influences UKA survivorship:a comparative study between all-poly and metal back designs. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2015, (23) :2074-2080.
14.	Hunter DJ, Zhang W, Conaghan PG, et al. Systematic review of the concurrent and predictive validity of MRI biomarkers in OA. Osteoarthritis Cartilage, 2011, 19(5) :557-588.
15.	Saragaglia D, Estour G, Nemer C, et al. Revision of 33 unicompartmental knee prostheses using total knee arthroplasty:strategy and results. Int Orthop, 2009, 33(4) :969-974.
16.	Fujii T, Matsui Y, Noboru M, et al. Meniscal bearing dislocation of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with faint symptom. Case Rep Orthop, 2015, (2015) :1-5.
17.	Bae DK, Guhl JF, Keane SP. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for single compartment disease. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1983, (176) :233-238.
18.	Sawatari T, Tsumura H, Iesaka K, et al. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty-the influence of tibial component inclination. J Orthop Res, 2005, 23(3) :549-554.
19.	Schroer WC, Barnes CL, Diesfeld P, et al. The Oxford unicompartmental knee fails at a high rate in a high-volume knee practice. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2013, 471(11) :3533-3539.
20.	Ko YB, Gujarathi MR, Oh KJ. Outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty:a systematic review of comparative studies between fixed and mobile bearings focusing on complications. Knee Surg Relat Res, 2015, 27(3) :141-148.
21.	Sébilo A, Casin C, Lebel B, et al. Clinical and technical factors influencing outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty:Retrospective multicentre study of 944 knees. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res, 2013, 99(4 Suppl):S227-S234.
22.	Steinbrück A, Woiczinski M, Weber P, et al. Posterior cruciate ligament balancing in total knee arthroplasty:a numerical study with a dynamic force controlled knee model. Biomed Eng Online, 2014, 13:91.
23.	van Jonbergen HP, Innocenti B, Gervasi GL, et al. Differences in the stress distribution in the distal femur between patellofemoral joint replacement and total knee replacement:a finite element study. J Orthop Surg Res, 2012, 7:28.
24.	Anuar MA, Todo M, Nagamine R, et al. Dynamic finite element analysis of mobile bearing type knee prosthesis under deep flexional motion. Scientific World Journal, 2014, (2014) :586921.

1. Lyons MC, MacDonald SJ, Somerville LE, et al. Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty database analysis:is there a winner? Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2012, 470(1) :84-90.
2. Heyse TJ, Lipman JD, Imhauser CW, et al. Accuracy of individualized custom tibial cutting guides in UKA. HSS J, 2014, 10(3) :260-265.
3. Martinez-Carranza N, Weidenhielm L, Crafoord J, et al. Deviation between navigated and final 3-dimensional implant position in mini-invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty:a pilot study in 13 patients. Acta Orthop, 2012, 83(6) :625-628.
4. Lonner JH, John TK, Conditt MA. Robotic arm-assisted UKA improves tibial component alignment:a pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2010, 468(1) :141-146.
5. Masjedi M, Jaffry Z, Harris S, et al. Protocol for evaluation of robotic technology in orthopedic surgery. Adv Orthop, 2013. doi:10.1155/2013/194683.
6. Steklov N, Slamin J, Srivastav S, et al. Unicompartmental knee resurfacing:enlarged tibio-femoral contact area and reduced contact stress using novel patient-derived geometries. Open Biomed Eng J, 2010, (4) :85-92.
7. Lee HW, Kim SJ, Kang KT, et al. The effect of tibial posterior slope on contact force and ligaments stresses in posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty-explicit finite element analysis. Knee Surg Relat Res, 2012, 24(2) :91-98.
8. Pegg EC, Walter J, Mellon SJ, et al. Evaluation offactors affecting tibial bone strain after unicompartmental knee replacement. J Orthop Res, 2013, 31(5) :821-828.
9. Iesaka K, Tsumura H, Sonoda H, et al. The effects of tibial component inclination on bone stress after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Biomech, 2002, 35(7) :969-974.
10. Saldanha KA, Keys GW, Svard UC, et al. Revision of Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty-results of a multicentre study. Knee, 2007, 14(4) :275-279.
11. Beard DJ, Pandit H, Gill HS, et al. The influence of the presence and severity of pre-existing patellofemoral degenerative changes on the outcome of the Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Br), 2007, 89(12) :1597-1601.
12. Price AJ, Svard U. A second decade lifetable survival analysis of the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2011, 469(1) :174-179.
13. Zambianchi F, Digennaro V, Giorgini A, et al. Surgeon's experience influences UKA survivorship:a comparative study between all-poly and metal back designs. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2015, (23) :2074-2080.
14. Hunter DJ, Zhang W, Conaghan PG, et al. Systematic review of the concurrent and predictive validity of MRI biomarkers in OA. Osteoarthritis Cartilage, 2011, 19(5) :557-588.
15. Saragaglia D, Estour G, Nemer C, et al. Revision of 33 unicompartmental knee prostheses using total knee arthroplasty:strategy and results. Int Orthop, 2009, 33(4) :969-974.
16. Fujii T, Matsui Y, Noboru M, et al. Meniscal bearing dislocation of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with faint symptom. Case Rep Orthop, 2015, (2015) :1-5.
17. Bae DK, Guhl JF, Keane SP. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for single compartment disease. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1983, (176) :233-238.
18. Sawatari T, Tsumura H, Iesaka K, et al. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty-the influence of tibial component inclination. J Orthop Res, 2005, 23(3) :549-554.
19. Schroer WC, Barnes CL, Diesfeld P, et al. The Oxford unicompartmental knee fails at a high rate in a high-volume knee practice. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2013, 471(11) :3533-3539.
20. Ko YB, Gujarathi MR, Oh KJ. Outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty:a systematic review of comparative studies between fixed and mobile bearings focusing on complications. Knee Surg Relat Res, 2015, 27(3) :141-148.
21. Sébilo A, Casin C, Lebel B, et al. Clinical and technical factors influencing outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty:Retrospective multicentre study of 944 knees. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res, 2013, 99(4 Suppl):S227-S234.
22. Steinbrück A, Woiczinski M, Weber P, et al. Posterior cruciate ligament balancing in total knee arthroplasty:a numerical study with a dynamic force controlled knee model. Biomed Eng Online, 2014, 13:91.
23. van Jonbergen HP, Innocenti B, Gervasi GL, et al. Differences in the stress distribution in the distal femur between patellofemoral joint replacement and total knee replacement:a finite element study. J Orthop Surg Res, 2012, 7:28.
24. Anuar MA, Todo M, Nagamine R, et al. Dynamic finite element analysis of mobile bearing type knee prosthesis under deep flexional motion. Scientific World Journal, 2014, (2014) :586921.

Previous Article
RESEARCH PROGRESS IN TREATMENT OF STERNOCLAVICULAR JOINT DISLOCATION
Next Article
APPLICATION AND RESEARCH PROGRESS OF AUTOLOGOUS FAT GRAFTING IN BREAST RECONSTRUCTION

Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery

APPLICATION OF COMPUTER-ASSISTED TECHNOLOGY IN ANALYSIS OF REVISION REASON OF UNICOMPARTMENTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content