Bi-Unicompartmental, Robot-Assisted Knee Arthroplasty

Clinical outcome of bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for both medial and lateral femorotibial arthritis: a systematic review—is there proof of concept?

“…In 1971, Gunston described the performance of bi-UKA with the use of polycentric, fixed-bearing components [16]. In the literature review, the choice of fixed bearing components has been predominant [22][23][24][27][28][29][30]. In contrast, Goodfellow and O'Connor published on the use of mobile bearing components for bi-UKA [17].…”

“…The results are summarized in Table 2. Simultaneous bi-UKA has mainly been performed through a medial parapatellar approach with lateral dislocation of the patella [16,17,23,24,[28][29][30]. Walker et al inserted the prosthesis through two parapatellar incisions using stereotactic jigs to ensure the accuracy of alignment [27].…”

“…They also tried to restore the original tibial slope of the different compartments. Dettmer and Kreuzer presented usefulness of robotic arm-assisted, 3D-navigation system for accurate bi-UKA [23].…”

“…The researchers concluded that bi-UKA is a viable option for bicompartmental tibiofemoral OA, with results that are at least as good as those for TKA but with preservation of a higher level of function. Dettmer and Kreuzer (n = 17 patients) also matched patients who received simultaneous bi-UKA with a similar age group of patients who received TKA and compared the subscales of postoperative knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome scores (KOOS) of both the groups [23]. The authors concluded that bi-UKA group had significantly better score in symptoms and activities of daily living.…”

“…1). In more recent literature, it has been suggested that bi-UKA is a feasible and viable option for the treatment of knee OA in the ACL intact patient [22][23][24], but reports are scattered and an overview is in demand. Given the advantages of UKA treatment, it is warranted to establish if there is proof of a bi-UKA concept in the existing literature.…”