Accurate implant fit and leg alignment after cruciate-retaining patient-specific total knee arthroplasty.
Implant positioning
Knee axis
Knee osteoarthritis
Patient-specific knee arthroplasty
Total knee replacement
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 Oct 2020
22 Oct 2020
Historique:
received:
24
04
2020
accepted:
09
10
2020
entrez:
23
10
2020
pubmed:
24
10
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
For improved outcomes in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) correct implant fitting and positioning are crucial. In order to facilitate a best possible implant fitting and positioning patient-specific systems have been developed. However, whether or not these systems allow for better implant fitting and positioning has yet to be elucidated. For this reason, the aim was to analyse the novel patient-specific cruciate retaining knee replacement system iTotal™ CR G2 that utilizes custom-made implants and instruments for its ability to facilitate accurate implant fitting and positioning including correction of the hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA). We assessed radiographic results of 106 patients who were treated with the second generation of a patient-specific cruciate retaining knee arthroplasty using iTotal™ CR G2 (ConforMIS Inc.) for tricompartmental knee osteoarthritis (OA) using custom-made implants and instruments. The implant fit and positioning as well as the correction of the mechanical axis (hip-knee-ankle angle, HKA) and restoration of the joint line were determined using pre- and postoperative radiographic analyses. On average, HKA was corrected from 174.4° ± 4.6° preoperatively to 178.8° ± 2.2° postoperatively and the coronal femoro-tibial angle was adjusted on average 4.4°. The measured preoperative tibial slope was 5.3° ± 2.2° (mean +/- SD) and the average postoperative tibial slope was 4.7° ± 1.1° on lateral views. The joint line was well preserved with an average modified Insall-Salvati index of 1.66 ± 0.16 pre- and 1.67 ± 0.16 postoperatively. The overall accuracy of fit of implant components was decent with a measured medial overhang of more than 1 mm (1.33 mm ± 0.32 mm) in 4 cases only. Further, a lateral overhang of more than 1 mm (1.8 mm ± 0.63) (measured in the anterior-posterior radiographs) was observed in 11 cases, with none of the 106 patients showing femoral notching. The patient-specific iTotal™ CR G2 total knee replacement system facilitated a proper fitting and positioning of the implant components. Moreover, a good restoration of the leg axis towards neutral alignment was achieved as planned. Nonetheless, further clinical follow-up studies are necessary to validate our findings and to determine the long-term impact of using this patient- specific system.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
For improved outcomes in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) correct implant fitting and positioning are crucial. In order to facilitate a best possible implant fitting and positioning patient-specific systems have been developed. However, whether or not these systems allow for better implant fitting and positioning has yet to be elucidated. For this reason, the aim was to analyse the novel patient-specific cruciate retaining knee replacement system iTotal™ CR G2 that utilizes custom-made implants and instruments for its ability to facilitate accurate implant fitting and positioning including correction of the hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA).
METHODS
METHODS
We assessed radiographic results of 106 patients who were treated with the second generation of a patient-specific cruciate retaining knee arthroplasty using iTotal™ CR G2 (ConforMIS Inc.) for tricompartmental knee osteoarthritis (OA) using custom-made implants and instruments. The implant fit and positioning as well as the correction of the mechanical axis (hip-knee-ankle angle, HKA) and restoration of the joint line were determined using pre- and postoperative radiographic analyses.
RESULTS
RESULTS
On average, HKA was corrected from 174.4° ± 4.6° preoperatively to 178.8° ± 2.2° postoperatively and the coronal femoro-tibial angle was adjusted on average 4.4°. The measured preoperative tibial slope was 5.3° ± 2.2° (mean +/- SD) and the average postoperative tibial slope was 4.7° ± 1.1° on lateral views. The joint line was well preserved with an average modified Insall-Salvati index of 1.66 ± 0.16 pre- and 1.67 ± 0.16 postoperatively. The overall accuracy of fit of implant components was decent with a measured medial overhang of more than 1 mm (1.33 mm ± 0.32 mm) in 4 cases only. Further, a lateral overhang of more than 1 mm (1.8 mm ± 0.63) (measured in the anterior-posterior radiographs) was observed in 11 cases, with none of the 106 patients showing femoral notching.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The patient-specific iTotal™ CR G2 total knee replacement system facilitated a proper fitting and positioning of the implant components. Moreover, a good restoration of the leg axis towards neutral alignment was achieved as planned. Nonetheless, further clinical follow-up studies are necessary to validate our findings and to determine the long-term impact of using this patient- specific system.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33092567
doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-03707-2
pii: 10.1186/s12891-020-03707-2
pmc: PMC7583183
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
699Références
Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2017 Sep;5(5):283-289
pubmed: 29226198
Orthopedics. 2012 Feb 17;35(2):e160-9
pubmed: 22310400
J Biomed Eng. 1992 Sep;14(5):363-70
pubmed: 1405552
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010 Jan;468(1):57-63
pubmed: 19844772
Orthopade. 2015 Apr;44(4):290-2, 294-301
pubmed: 25860119
J Arthroplasty. 2013 Feb;28(2):227-33
pubmed: 22749658
Int Orthop. 2017 Oct;41(10):2037-2044
pubmed: 28550426
Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2017 Feb;29(1):31-39
pubmed: 28144717
Springerplus. 2015 Dec 30;4:835
pubmed: 26753122
Knee Surg Relat Res. 2016 Mar;28(1):1-15
pubmed: 26955608
Orthopade. 2016 Jul;45(7):569-72
pubmed: 27357945
Knee. 2007 Oct;14(5):411-6
pubmed: 17669659
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Aug 3;93(15):1377-84
pubmed: 21915542
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995 Dec;(321):117-21
pubmed: 7497656
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019 Apr;27(4):1083-1095
pubmed: 30377714
Expert Rev Med Devices. 2019 Jul;16(7):555-567
pubmed: 31154870
Can J Surg. 2019 Dec 01;62(6):460-467
pubmed: 31782643
J Arthroplasty. 1997 Sep;12(6):677-82
pubmed: 9306219
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013 Mar;133(3):405-11
pubmed: 23242451
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Nov;(428):26-34
pubmed: 15534515
Bone Joint J. 2013 Mar;95-B(3):354-9
pubmed: 23450020
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008 Sep;90(9):1121-7
pubmed: 18757949
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Jan;471(1):264-76
pubmed: 22948522
J Arthroplasty. 2009 Jun;24(4):570-8
pubmed: 18534396
Arch Med Sci. 2018 Oct;14(6):1424-1431
pubmed: 30393498
J Surg Orthop Adv. 2011 Summer;20(2):112-6
pubmed: 21838072
Orthopade. 2009 Jul;38(7):616-21
pubmed: 19513692
Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2017 Feb;29(1):51-58
pubmed: 28144716
J Arthroplasty. 2018 May;33(5):1394-1398
pubmed: 29452971
Knee. 2011 Oct;18(5):294-9
pubmed: 20688521
Int Orthop. 2015 Aug;39(8):1519-26
pubmed: 25645437
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010 May;92(5):1115-21
pubmed: 20439656