The Medial Tibial Plateau Can Be Used as a Direct Anatomical Reference for the Posterior Tibial Slope in Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

Abstract

There has been no consensus about how to determine the individual posterior tibial slope (PTS) intraoperatively. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the tibial plateau could be used as a reference for reproducing individual PTS during medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Preoperative computed tomography (CT) data from 48 lower limbs for medial UKA were imported into a three-dimensional planning software. Digitally reconstructed radiographs were created from the CT data as the lateral knee plain radiographs and the radiographic PTS angle was measured. Then, the PTS angles on the medial one-quarter and the center of the MTP (¼ and ½ MTP, respectively), and that on the medial tibial eminence (TE) were measured on the sagittal multiplanar reconstruction image. Finally, 20 lateral knee radiographs with an arthroscopic probe placed on the ¼ and the ½ MTP were obtained intraoperatively, and the angle between the axis of the probe and the tangent line of the plateau was measured. The mean radiographic PTS angle was 7.9 ± 3.0 degrees (range: 1.7–13.6 degrees). The mean PTS angles on the ¼ MTP, the ½ MTP, and the TE were 8.1 ± 3.0 degrees (1.2–13.4 degrees), 9.1 ± 3.0 degrees (1.4–14.7 degrees), and 9.9 ± 3.1 degrees (3.1–15.7 degrees), respectively. The PTS angles on the ¼ MTP and the ½ MTP were strongly correlated with the radiographic PTS angle (r =0.87 and 0.80, respectively, p < 0.001). A statistically significant difference was observed between the mean angle of the radiographic PTS and the PTS on the TE (p < 0.01). The mean angle between the axis of the probe and the tangent line of the tibial plateau was −0.4 ± 0.9 degrees (−2.3–1.3 degrees) on the ¼ MTP and −0.1 ± 0.7 degrees (−1.5–1.2 degrees) on the ½ MTP, respectively. An area from the medial one-quarter to the center of the MTP could be used as an anatomical reference for the individual PTS.

Keywords

anatomical reference - posterior tibial slope - tibial plateau - unicompartmental knee arthroplasty - digital reconstruction radiograph

Publication History

Received: 14 April 2021

Accepted: 22 October 2021

Article published online:
17 December 2021

• References

• 1 Berger RA, Meneghini RM, Jacobs JJ. et al. Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum of ten years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87 (05) 999-1006
• 2 Biswal S, Brighton RW. Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cemented, fixed-bearing prosthesis using minimally invasive surgery. J Arthroplasty 2010; 25 (05) 721-727
• 3 Siman H, Kamath AF, Carrillo N, Harmsen WS, Pagnano MW, Sierra RJ. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty vs total knee arthroplasty for medial compartment arthritis in patients older than 75 years: comparable reoperation, revision, and complication rates. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (06) 1792-1797
• 4 Liddle AD, Judge A, Pandit H, Murray DW. Adverse outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee replacement in 101,330 matched patients: a study of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet 2014; 384 (9952): 1437-1445
• 5 Burn E, Sanchez-Santos MT, Pandit HG. et al. Ten-year patient-reported outcomes following total and minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a propensity score-matched cohort analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2018; 26 (05) 1455-1464
• 6 Fabre-Aubrespy M, Ollivier M, Pesenti S, Parratte S, Argenson JN. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients older than 75 results in better clinical outcomes and similar survivorship compared to total knee arthroplasty. A matched controlled study. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (12) 2668-2671
• 7 Zuiderbaan HA, van der List JP, Khamaisy S. et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty: which type of artificial joint do patients forget?. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25 (03) 681-686
• 8 Bellemans J, Colyn W, Vandenneucker H, Victor J. The Chitranjan Ranawat award: is neutral mechanical alignment normal for all patients? The concept of constitutional varus. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470 (01) 45-53
• 9 Deschamps G, Chol C. Fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Patients' selection and operative technique. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2011; 97 (06) 648-661
• 10 Vasso M, Del Regno C, D'Amelio A, Viggiano D, Corona K, Schiavone Panni A. Minor varus alignment provides better results than neutral alignment in medial UKA. Knee 2015; 22 (02) 117-121
• 11 Heyse TJ, El-Zayat BF, De Corte R. et al. UKA closely preserves natural knee kinematics in vitro. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2014; 22 (08) 1902-1910
• 12 Watanabe T, Abbasi AZ, Conditt MA. et al. In vivo kinematics of a robot-assisted uni- and multi-compartmental knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Sci 2014; 19 (04) 552-557
• 13 Chatellard R, Sauleau V, Colmar M, Robert H, Raynaud G, Brilhault J. Société d'Orthopédie et de Traumatologie de l'Ouest (SOO). Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: does tibial component position influence clinical outcomes and arthroplasty survival?. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2013; 99 (4, Suppl): S219-S225
• 14 Inoue S, Akagi M, Asada S, Mori S, Zaima H, Hashida M. The valgus inclination of the tibial component increases the risk of medial tibial condylar fractures in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (09) 2025-2030
• 15 Innocenti B, Pianigiani S, Ramundo G, Thienpont E. Biomechanical effects of different varus and valgus alignments in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (12) 2685-2691
• 16 Asada S, Inoue S, Tsukamoto I, Mori S, Akagi M. Obliquity of tibial component after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee 2019; 26 (02) 410-415
• 17 Sekiguchi K, Nakamura S, Kuriyama S. et al. Effect of tibial component alignment on knee kinematics and ligament tension in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint Res 2019; 8 (03) 126-135
• 18 Hernigou P, Deschamps G. Posterior slope of the tibial implant and the outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86 (03) 506-511
• 19 Nunley RM, Nam D, Johnson SR, Barnes CL. Extreme variability in posterior slope of the proximal tibia: measurements on 2395 CT scans of patients undergoing UKA?. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (08) 1677-1680
• 20 Giffin JR, Stabile KJ, Zantop T, Vogrin TM, Woo SL, Harner CD. Importance of tibial slope for stability of the posterior cruciate ligament deficient knee. Am J Sports Med 2007; 35 (09) 1443-1449
• 21 Takayama K, Matsumoto T, Muratsu H. et al. The influence of posterior tibial slope changes on joint gap and range of motion in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee 2016; 23 (03) 517-522
• 22 Haddad B, Konan S, Mannan K, Scott G. Evaluation of the posterior tibial slope on MR images in different population groups using the tibial proximal anatomical axis. Acta Orthop Belg 2012; 78 (06) 757-763
• 23 Hashemi J, Chandrashekar N, Gill B. et al. The geometry of the tibial plateau and its influence on the biomechanics of the tibiofemoral joint. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008; 90 (12) 2724-2734
• 24 Saxena V, Anari JB, Ruutiainen AT, Voleti PB, Stephenson JW, Lee GC. Tibial component considerations in bicruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty: a 3D MRI evaluation of proximal tibial anatomy. Knee 2016; 23 (04) 593-599
• 25 Matsuda S, Miura H, Nagamine R. et al. Posterior tibial slope in the normal and varus knee. Am J Knee Surg 1999; 12 (03) 165-168
• 26 Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS. Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis 1957; 16 (04) 494-502
• 27 Akagi M, Oh M, Nonaka T, Tsujimoto H, Asano T, Hamanishi C. An anteroposterior axis of the tibia for total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; (420) 213-219
• 28 Tsukamoto I, Akagi M, Mori S, Inoue S, Asada S, Matsumura F. Anteroposterior rotational references of the tibia for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in Japanese patients. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (10) 3169-3175