Innovations in total knee replacement: new trends in operative treatment and changes in peri-operative management

The human knee joint can sustain damage due to injury, or more usually osteoarthritis, to one, two or all three of the knee compartments: the medial femorotibial, the lateral femorotibial and the patellofemoral compartments. When pain associated with this damage is unmanageable using nonsurgical techniques, knee replacement surgery might be the most appropriate course of action. This procedure aims to restore a pain-free, fully functional and durable knee joint. Total knee replacement is a well-established treatment modality, and more recently, partial knee replacement—more commonly known as bi- or unicompartmental knee replacement—has seen resurgence in interest and popularity. Combined with the use of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques, gender-specific prosthetics and computer-assisted navigation systems, orthopaedic surgeons are now able to offer patients knee replacement procedures that are associated with (1) minimal risks during and after surgery by avoiding fat embolism, reducing blood loss and minimising soft tissue disruption; (2) smaller incisions; (3) faster and less painful rehabilitation; (4) reduced hospital stay and faster return to normal activities of daily living; (5) an improved range of motion; (6) less requirement for analgesics; and (7) a durable, well-aligned, highly functional knee. With the ongoing advancements in surgical technique, medical technology and prosthesis design, knee replacement surgery is constantly evolving. This review provides a personal account of the recent innovations that have been made, with a particular emphasis on the potential use of MIS techniques combined with computer-assisted navigation systems to treat younger, more physically active patients with resurfacing partial/total implant knee arthroplasty

Unicompartmental versus computer-assisted total knee replacement for medial compartment knee arthritis: a matched paired study

Patients older than 60 with unicompartmental knee arthritis can be treated with total or unicompartmental knee replacement. The aim of this study was to compare the results of matched paired groups of patients with isolated medial compartment knee arthritis replaced with either UKR (group A) or computer-assisted TKR (group B). The results included 68 knees at a minimum follow-up of 3 years. All patients had a varus deformity no greater than 8º and a BMI lower than 30. Patients were matched in terms of preoperative arthritis severity, age, gender and preoperative range of motion. In the computer-assisted TKR group, all the implants were positioned within 4º of the correct hip-knee-ankle angle and frontal tibial component angle. The surgical time and hospital stay were statistically longer in the CA TKR group. During the study no implant required revision. The results showed higher scores for a UKR in the treatment of isolated primary unicompartmental knee arthritis in patients older than 60 compared to a computer-assisted TKR. In this study a computer-assisted alignment system for TKR with optimal implant positioning did not produce equivalent clinical results compared to a UKR, but did increase the financial costs