Computer-assisted revision of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Abstract

The authors performed a matched-paired study comparing 22 computer-assisted surgery (CAS)-unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) revisions with a similar group of knee replacement revisions performed conventionally. The aim of the study was to assess differences in implants used in the revision, surgical time, limb alignment, joint line restoration, and procedure costs. In the conventional group, there was a higher percentage of posterior stabilized (PS) and condylar constrained knee (CCK) implants, as well as a higher percentage of augmentations/stems/offsets. There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative mechanical axis, surgical time, or hospital stay. There were fewer outliers and better joint line restoration in the CAS group. More blood transfusions were performed in the conventional group, and costs were higher in this group as well.