Is computernavigation a usefull tool in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty? A pilot cadaver study

被引:5
作者
Aldinger, PR
Gill, HS
Schlegel, U
Schneider, M
Clauss, M
Goodfellow, JW
Murray, DW
Breusch, SJ
机构
[1] Stiftung Orthopad Univ Klin, D-69118 Heidelberg, Germany
[2] Univ Oxford, Oxford Orthopaed Engn Collaborat, Oxford, England
[3] Nuffield Orthopaed Ctr, Oxford OX3 7LD, England
[4] Univ Edinburgh, Dept Orthopaed, Edinburgh EH8 9YL, Midlothian, Scotland
来源
ORTHOPADE | 2005年 / 34卷 / 11期
关键词
computer navigation; implant positioning; knee replacement; effectiveness; minimally invasive approach;
D O I
10.1007/s00132-005-0883-9
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
We conducted this pilot cadaver study to investigate whether the use of a navigation system during minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty leads to more consistent results than the conventional hand-guided technique. We describe the accuracy of implant positioning in using standard instrumentation and computer navigation. Radiographic assessment showed that accurate component placement was achieved using both methods. These results were not statistically significant. The computer navigated femoral component placement without intramedullary (IM) rod was as accurate as the conventional method with IM rod. The study showed that computer navigation can produce accurate results even without an intramedullary rod. Image guidance can maintain the accuracy of the standard instrumentation and enhance 3D vision and the intraoperative orientation of the surgeon.
引用
收藏
页码:1094 / +
页数:7
相关论文
共 23 条
[1]  
Châtain F, 2004, REV CHIR ORTHOP, V90, P49
[2]   Computer-assisted orthopaedic surgery: minimally invasive hip and knee reconstruction [J].
DiGioia, AM ;
Blendea, S ;
Jaramaz, B .
ORTHOPEDIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2004, 35 (02) :183-+
[3]  
ECKER ML, 1987, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, P151
[4]   Unicompartmental knee prosthesis implantation with a non-image-based navigation system: rationale, technique, case-control comparative study with a conventional instrumented implantation [J].
Jenny, JY ;
Boeri, C .
KNEE SURGERY SPORTS TRAUMATOLOGY ARTHROSCOPY, 2003, 11 (01) :40-45
[5]   Revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty - Outcome in 1,135 cases from the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty study [J].
Lewold, S ;
Robertsson, O ;
Knutson, K ;
Lidgren, L .
ACTA ORTHOPAEDICA SCANDINAVICA, 1998, 69 (05) :469-474
[6]   Minimally invasive unicompartmental knee replacement: rationale and correct indications [J].
Meek, RMD ;
Masri, BA ;
Duncan, CP .
ORTHOPEDIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2004, 35 (02) :191-+
[7]   Navigation in knee arthroplasty - Preliminary clinical experience and prospective comparative study in comparison with conventional technique [J].
Mielke, RK ;
Clemens, U ;
Lens, JH ;
Kershally, S .
ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ORTHOPADIE UND IHRE GRENZGEBIETE, 2001, 139 (02) :109-116
[8]   In vitro measurement of patellofemoral force after three types of knee replacement [J].
Miller, RK ;
Goodfellow, JW ;
Murray, DW ;
O'Connor, JJ .
JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-BRITISH VOLUME, 1998, 80B (05) :900-906
[9]  
Mont Michael A, 2004, Instr Course Lect, V53, P265
[10]   Influence of minimally invasive surgery on implant positioning and the functional outcome for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty [J].
Müller, PE ;
Pellengahr, C ;
Witt, M ;
Kircher, J ;
Refior, HJ ;
Jansson, V .
JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2004, 19 (03) :296-301