I. Introduction
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has been developing since the early 1970s. Much early literature indicates that results were not ideal. The main reasons inlcuded poorly designed implant, inappropriate patient selection, and doctors' misconceptions regarding the surgery [1]–[3]. UKA results and evaluations have greatly improved, thanks to improved implant design, precise patient selection, refined surgical techniques, and accumulated expertise in related techniques. However, recent reports of UKA clinical followups continue to show failed operations due to wearing PE tibial components [1], [4]. PE tibial component wear mainly comes from excess stress, mainly related to faulty component positioning [5], [6]. And, the main reason usually stems from the corrected angle in coronal plane and PTS [2], [6], [7]. Overcorrection may cause the damage of the opposite tibiofemoral cartilage, while undercorrection may cause the wear of PE tibial components. This implicitly signifies that the final angle corrected for knee deformity is a crucial factor of a successful UKA. Hernigou and Deschamps [8] further reported that the greater PTS would cause an increasing number of cases requiring secondary replacement due to PE tibial component damage.