The rotational alignment of the tibia is an unresolved issue in knee replacement. A poor functional outcome may be due to malrotation of the tibial component. Our aim was to find a reliable method for positioning the tibial component in knee replacement.

CT scans of 19 knees were reconstructed in three dimensions and orientated vertically. An axial plane was identified 20 mm below the tibial spines. The centre of each tibial condyle was calculated from ten points taken round the condylar cortex. The tibial tubercle centre was also generated as the centre of the circle which best fitted eight points on the outside of the tubercle in an axial plane at the level of its most prominent point.

The derived points were identified by three observers with errors of 0.6 mm to 1 mm. The medial and lateral tibial centres were constant features (radius 24 mm (sd 3), and 22 mm (sd 3), respectively). An anatomical axis was created perpendicular to the line joining these two points. The tubercle centre was found to be 20 mm (sd 7) lateral to the centre of the medial tibial condyle. Compared with this axis, an axis perpendicular to the posterior condylar axis was internally rotated by 6° (sd 3). An axis based on the tibial tubercle and the tibial spines was also internally rotated by 5° (sd 10).

Alignment of the knee when based on this anatomical axis was more reliable than either the posterior surfaces or any axis involving the tubercle which was the least reliable landmark in the region.

The options for treatment of the young active patient with isolated symptomatic osteoarthritis of the medial compartment and pre-existing deficiency of the anterior cruciate ligament are limited. The potential longevity of the implant and levels of activity of the patient may preclude total knee replacement, and tibial osteotomy and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty are unreliable because of the ligamentous instability. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasties tend to fail because of wear or tibial loosening resulting from eccentric loading. Therefore, we combined reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament with unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee in 15 patients (ACLR group), and matched them with 15 patients who had undergone Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with an intact anterior cruciate ligament (ACLI group). The clinical and radiological data at a minimum of 2.5 years were compared for both groups.

The groups were well matched for age, gender and length of follow-up and had no significant differences in their pre-operative scores. At the last follow-up, the mean outcome scores for both the ACLR and ACLI groups were high (Oxford knee scores of 46 (37 to 48) and 43 (38 to 46), respectively, objective Knee Society scores of 99 (95 to 100) and 94 (82 to 100), and functional Knee Society scores of 96 and 96 (both 85 to 100). One patient in the ACLR group needed revision to a total knee replacement because of infection. No patient in either group had radiological evidence of component loosening. The radiological study showed no difference in the pattern of tibial loading between the groups.

The short-term clinical results of combined anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty are excellent. The previous shortcomings of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the presence of deficiency of the anterior cruciate ligament appear to have been addressed with the combined procedure. This operation seems to be a viable treatment option for young active patients with symptomatic arthritis of the medial compartment, in whom the anterior cruciate ligament has been ruptured.

We performed a prospective, randomised controlled trial of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty comparing the performance of the Acrobot system with conventional surgery. A total of 27 patients (28 knees) awaiting unicompartmental knee arthroplasty were randomly allocated to have the operation performed conventionally or with the assistance of the Acrobot. The primary outcome measurement was the angle of tibiofemoral alignment in the coronal plane, measured by CT. Other secondary parameters were evaluated and are reported.

All of the Acrobot group had tibiofemoral alignment in the coronal plane within 2° of the planned position, while only 40% of the conventional group achieved this level of accuracy. While the operations took longer, no adverse effects were noted, and there was a trend towards improvement in performance with increasing accuracy based on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and American Knee Society scores at six weeks and three months. The Acrobot device allows the surgeon to reproduce a pre-operative plan more reliably than is possible using conventional techniques which may have clinical advantages.