Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tissue-Sparing Surgery (TSS) and Computer-Assisted Surgery (CAS) in Knee Reconstruction: Bi-Unicompartmental vs Total Knee Arthroplasty

  • Chapter
Small Implants in Knee Reconstruction

  • 1029 Accesses

Abstract

In the beginning of this century, a new ideal of a renewed, less invasive, reconstructive surgery began to grow in the whole orthopedic world, moving firstly from USA. Likewise, minimally invasive total knee replacement is growing in popularity because of faster recoveries, theoretical reduced blood losses, and reduced economical costs [1–3]. Nevertheless, economical pressures by companies interested in an increasing market have played an important role in developing these new trends. However, less-invasive surgery has been often identified both by surgeons and manufacturers as requiring shorter surgical approaches to implant the same prostheses used with traditional approaches, performing the so called “key-hole surgery” even with new potential risks (malalignment, avulsions, and local wound problems). More recently, different authors recommend caution toward these mini-incision techniques in total joint replacement [4, 5].

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Haas SB, Cook S, Beksac B (2004) Minimally invasive total knee replacement through a mini midvastus approach: a comparative study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 428:8–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Laskin RS (2005) Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty: the results justify its use. Clin Orthop Relat Res 440:54–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lonner JH (2006) Minimally invasive approaches to total knee arthroplasty: results. Am J Orthop 35 (7 Suppl):27–33

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr (2005) Avoiding the potential pitfalls of minimally invasive total knee surgery. Orthopedics 28(11):1326–30

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dalury DF, Dennis DA (2005) Mini-incision total knee arthroplasty can increase risk of component malalignment. Clin Orthop Rel Res 440:77–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Confalonieri N, Manzotti A (2006) Tissue-sparing surgery with the bi-unicompartmental knee prosthesis: retrospective study with minimum follow-up of 36 months J Orthopaed Traumatol 7:108–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Banks SA, Frely BJ, Boniforti F, Reischmidt C, Romagnoli S (2005) Comparing in vivo kinematics of unicondylar and bi-unicondylar knee replacement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 13:551–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fuchs S, Tibesku CO, Frisse D, Genkinger m, Laaß H, Rosenbaum D (2005) Clinical and functional of uni-and bicondylar sledge prostheses. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 13:197–202

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Andriacchi TP, Andersson GB, Fermier RW, Stern D, Galante JO (1980) A study of lower-limb mechanics during stair-climbing. J Bone Joint Surg Am 62(5):749–57

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Weale AE, Halabi OA, Jones PW, White SH (2001) Perceptions of out-comes after unicompartmental and total knee replacements. Clin Orthop 382:143–153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Eickmann TH, Collier MB, Sukezaki F, McAuley JP, Engh GA (2006) Survival of medial unicondylar arthroplasties placed by one surgeon 1984-1998. Clin Orthop Relat Res 17:167–175

    Google Scholar 

  12. O’Rourke MR, Gardner JJ, Callaghan JJ, Liu SS, Goetz DD, Vittetoe DA, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC (2005) The John Insall Award: unicompartmental knee replacement: a minimum twenty-one-year followup, end-result study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 440:27–37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Swienckowski JJ, Pennington DW (2004) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients sixty years of age or younger. J Bone Joint Surg 86-A Suppl 1(Pt 2):131–42

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Swanson AB, Swanson GD, Powers T, Khalil MA, Maupin BK, Mayhew DE, Moss SH (1985) Unicompartmental and bicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee with a finned metal tibial-plateau implant. J Bone Joint Surg Am 67(8):1175–82

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Goodfellow JW, O’Connor J (1986) Clinical results of the Oxford knee. Surface arthroplasty of the tibiofemoral joint with a meniscal bearing prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 205:21–42

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lewallen DG, Bryan RS, Peterson LF (1984) Polycentric total knee arthroplasty. A ten-year followup study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 66(8):1211–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Confalonieri N, Manzotti A, Cerveri P, De Momi E (2009) Bi-unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty: a matched paired study with early clinical results. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 129(9):1157–63

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Heyse TJ, Khefacha A, Cartier P (2010) UKA in combination with PFR at average 12-year follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 130(10):1227–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Parratte S, Pauly V, Aubaniac JM, Argenson JN (2010) Survival of bicompartmental knee arthroplasty at 5 to 23 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(1):64–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tria AJ Jr (2010) Bicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee.Instr Course Lect 59:61–73

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Morrison TA, Nyce JD, Macaulay WB, Geller JA (2011) Early adverse results with bicompartmental knee arthroplasty a prospective cohort comparison to total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 26(6 Suppl): 35–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Köck FX, Weingärtner D, Beckmann J, Anders S, Schaumburger J, Grifka J, Lüring C (2011) Operative treatment of the unicompartmental knee arthritis-results of a nationwide survey in 2008. Z Orthop Unfall 149(2):153–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Huang TW, Hsu WH, Peng KT, Wen-Wei Hsu R, Weng YJ, Shen WJ (2011) Total knee arthroplasty with use of computer-assisted navigation compared with conventional guiding systems in the same patient: radiographic results in asian patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(13):1197–202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Zhang GQ, Chen JY, Chai W, Liu M, Wang Y (2011) Comparison between computer-assisted-navigation and conventional total knee arthroplasties in patients undergoing simultaneous bilateral procedures: a randomized clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(13):1190–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Khan MM, Khan MW, Al-Harbi HH, Weening BS, Zalzal PK (2011) Assessing short-term functional outcomes and knee alignment of computer-assisted navigated total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty [Epub ahead of print]

    Google Scholar 

  26. Pang HN, Yeo SJ, Chong HC, Chin PL, Ong J, Lo NN (2011) Computer-assisted gap balancing technique improves outcome in total knee arthroplasty, compared with conventional measured resection technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19(9):1496–503

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Konyves A, Willis-Owen CA, Spriggins AJ (2010) The long-term benefit of computer-assisted surgical navigation in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res 31:94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Jung KA, Kim SJ, Lee SC, Hwang SH, Ahn NK (2010) Accuracy of implantation during computer-assisted minimally invasive Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a comparison with a conventional instrumented technique. Knee 17(6):387–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Jenny JY (2005) Navigated unicompartmental knee replacement. Orthopedics 28 (10 Suppl): s1263–7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Confalonieri N, Manzotti A (2005) Computer Assisted bi-unicompartimental knee replacement. Int J Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery 1(4):1–6

    Google Scholar 

  31. Lonner JH (2009) Modular bicompartmental knee arthroplasty with robotic arm assistance. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 38(2 Suppl):28–3

    Google Scholar 

  32. Stiehl JB, Komistek RD, Cloutier JM, Dennis DA (2000) The cruciate ligaments in total knee arthroplasty: a kinematic analysis of 2 total knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 15(5):545–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Cloutier JM, Sabouret P, Deghrar A (1999) Total knee arthroplasty with retention of both cruciate ligaments. A nine to eleven-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81(5):697–702

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Engh GA (2007) A bicompartimental solution: what the Deuce? Orthopedics 30:770

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Rolston L, Bresh J, Engh GA, Alois F, Kreuzer S, Nadaudad M, Puri L, Wood D (2007) Bicompartimental knee arthroplasty: a bone-sparing, ligament sparing, and minimally invasive alternative for active patients. Orthopedics 30(8 Suppl):70–3

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Palumbo BT, Henderson ER, Edwards PK, Burris RB, Gutiérrez S, Raterman SJ (2011) Initial experience of the journey-deuce bicompartmental knee prosthesis a review of 36 cases. J Arthroplasty 26(6 Suppl):40–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopedic, Traumatology and Hand Surgery Department, CTO Hospital, Milan, Italy

    Norberto Confalonieri

Authors
  1. Norberto Confalonieri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alfonso Manzotti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Norberto Confalonieri .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopedic, Traumatology and Hand Surgery Department, CTO Hospital, Milan, Italy

    Norberto Confalonieri

  2. Galeazzi Orthopedic Institute, Milan, Italy

    Sergio Romagnoli

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Italia

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Confalonieri, N., Manzotti, A. (2013). Tissue-Sparing Surgery (TSS) and Computer-Assisted Surgery (CAS) in Knee Reconstruction: Bi-Unicompartmental vs Total Knee Arthroplasty. In: Confalonieri, N., Romagnoli, S. (eds) Small Implants in Knee Reconstruction. Springer, Milano. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-2655-1_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-2655-1_10

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Milano

  • Print ISBN: 978-88-470-2654-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-88-470-2655-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation