The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American) 86:506-511 (2004)
© 2004 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
Posterior Slope of the Tibial Implant and the Outcome of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty
Philippe Hernigou, MD1 and
Gerard Deschamps, MD2
1 University Paris XII, Hôpital Henri Mondor, 94010 Creteil, France
2 Clinique de Dracy, 71640 Dracy Le Fort, France
Investigation performed at Hôpital Henri Mondor, Creteil,
France
The authors did not receive grants or outside funding in support of their
research or preparation of this manuscript. They did not receive payments or
other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a
commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or
direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational
institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the
authors are affiliated or associated.
A commentary is available with the electronic versions of this article,
on our web site (www.jbjs.org) and on our quarterly CD-ROM (call our
subscription department, at 781-449-9780, to order the CD-ROM).
Background: Laboratory studies have suggested that the sagittal
displacements permitted by a knee replacement are influenced by the posterior
slope of the tibial implant. The effect of the posterior slope of the tibial
implant on the outcome of unicompartmental arthroplasty is not well known. The
purpose of the present study was to assess the effect of the posterior slope
on the long-term outcome of unicompartmental arthroplasty in knees with intact
and deficient anterior cruciate ligaments.
Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the results of ninety-nine
unicompartmental arthroplasties after a mean duration of follow-up of sixteen
years. At the time of the arthroplasty, the anterior cruciate ligament was
considered to be normal in fifty knees, damaged in thirty-one, and absent in
eighteen. At the most recent follow-up, we measured the posterior tibial slope
and the anterior tibial translation on standing lateral radiographs. The
anteroposterior stability of seventy-seven knees that had not been revised by
the time of the most recent follow-up was evaluated clinically.
Results: In the group of seventy-seven knees that had not been
revised by the time of the most recent follow-up, there was a significant
linear relationship between anterior tibial translation (mean, 3.7 mm) and
posterior tibial slope (mean, 4.3°) (p < 0.01). The mean posterior
slope of the tibial implant was significantly less in the group of
seventy-seven knees without loosening of the implant than it was in the group
of seventeen knees with loosening of the implant (p < 0.05). Five ruptures
of the anterior cruciate ligament occurred in knees in which the ligament had
been considered to be normal at the time of implantation; the posterior tibial
slope in these five knees was 13°. Clinical evaluation revealed normal
or nearly normal anteroposterior stability at the time of the most recent
follow-up in all sixty-six unrevised knees in which the anterior cruciate
ligament had been present at the time of implantation. Of the eighteen knees
in which the anterior cruciate ligament had been absent at the time of the
arthroplasty, eleven still had the implant in situ at the time of the most
recent follow-up; the mean posterior tibial slope in these eleven knees was
<5°. Seven knees in which the anterior cruciate ligament had been
absent at the time of the arthroplasty were revised. In these knees, the
tibial prosthesis was implanted with a posterior slope of >8°.
Conclusions: These findings suggest that >7° of posterior
slope of the tibial implant should be avoided, particularly if the anterior
cruciate ligament is absent at the time of implantation. An intact anterior
cruciate ligament, even when partly degenerated, was associated with the
maintenance of normal anteroposterior stability of the knee for an average of
sixteen years following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
Level of Evidence: Prognostic study, Level II-1
(retrospective study). See Instructions to Authors for a complete description
of levels of evidence.

CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Facebook Technorati Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
A. D. Pearle, D. Kendoff, and V. Musahl
Perspectives on Computer-Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery: Movement Toward Quantitative Orthopaedic Surgery
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am.,
February 1, 2009;
91(Supplement_1):
7 - 12.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
M. A. Conditt and M. W. Roche
Minimally Invasive Robotic-Arm-Guided Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am.,
February 1, 2009;
91(Supplement_1):
63 - 68.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
T. Borus and T. Thornhill
Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty
J. Am. Acad. Ortho. Surg.,
January 1, 2008;
16(1):
9 - 18.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
F. D. Naal, M. Fischer, A. Preuss, J. Goldhahn, F. von Knoch, S. Preiss, U. Munzinger, and T. Drobny
Return to Sports and Recreational Activity After Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty
Am. J. Sports Med.,
October 1, 2007;
35(10):
1688 - 1695.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
M. J. Archibeck and R. E. White Jr.
What's New in Adult Reconstructive Knee Surgery
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am.,
July 1, 2005;
87(7):
1656 - 1666.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
|