Gait Analysis Study Comparing Unicompartmental vs. Total Knee Arthroplasty: Differences in Knee Kinematics

Gait analysis study comparing unicompartmental vs. total knee arthroplasty, differences in knee kinematics: a retrospective cohort study. Background and Objectives: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an effective treatment for advanced knee osteoarthritis, although functional outcomes may remain suboptimal in many patients. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) often provides better functional recovery but shows lower long-term implant survival. Recently, personalized TKA approaches have been developed to improve kinematic restoration and patient satisfaction. This study aimed to compare knee kinematics among patients who underwent personalized TKA, medial UKA, and healthy controls. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 9 patients treated with robotic-assisted personalized TKA, 9 patients treated with medial UKA, and 9 healthy controls matched for age, sex, and BMI. Inclusion criteria were age 60–80 years, Kellgren–Lawrence grade III–IV, a minimum follow-up of 12 months, deviation from neutral HKA < 15°, healthy contralateral knee, and high postoperative functional scores. Exclusion criteria included valgus knees (HKA > 180°), postoperative complications, and neuromotor disorders. In the TKA group, a Medial Congruent implant was implanted with ROSA robotic assistance using a restricted kinematic alignment (±5° HKA) and asymmetric intercompartmental balancing. In the UKA group, a fixed-bearing medial implant (Physica ZUK) was used. Gait analysis was performed on a markerless instrumented treadmill (WalkerView™; Dalmine, Italy). Differences between groups were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc test (p < 0.05). Results: UKA patients walked with a stiffer knee during stance. Knee range of motion during stance increased from UKA (6.3° ± 7.2°) to TKA (13.6° ± 8.8°, p = 0.045) and to controls (16.6° ± 4.5°, p = 0.02). During loading response, UKA patients showed lower flexion (10.2° ± 6.1°) than TKA (19.4° ± 7.9°, p = 0.049) and controls (19.6° ± 2.8°, p = 0.004). Knee flexion during swing was comparable between UKA and TKA. Conclusions: UKA patients demonstrated reduced knee flexion during early stance compared with robotic-assisted TKA and healthy controls. The observed differences may reflect multiple factors, including surgical technique, implant design, and patient-related characteristics. Because preoperative functional data were not available, potential selection bias cannot be excluded. These findings should be interpreted cautiously and warrant confirmation in larger prospective studies.