The medial condylar wall is a reliable landmark to kinematically align the femoral component in medial UKA: an in-silico study.
Journal
Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA
ISSN: 1433-7347
Titre abrégé: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9314730
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2022
Sep 2022
Historique:
received:
17
04
2021
accepted:
22
07
2021
pubmed:
8
8
2021
medline:
31
8
2022
entrez:
7
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Kinematic alignment (KA) aligns the femoral implant perpendicular to the cylindrical axis in the frontal and axial plane. Identification of the kinematic axes when using the mini-invasive sub-quadricipital approach is challenging in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). This study aims to assess if the orientation of condylar walls may be suitable for use as an anatomical landmark to kinematically align the femoral component in medial UKA. It was hypothesised that the medial wall of the medial condyle would prove to be a reliable anatomical landmark to set both the frontal and axial alignment of the femoral component in medial UKA. 73 patients undergoing medial UKA had pre-operative CT imaging to generate 3D models. Those with osteophytes that impaired visualisation of the condylar walls were excluded. 28 patients were included in the study. The ideal KA was determined using the cylindrical axis in the frontal and axial plane. Simulations using the medial wall of the medial condyle (MWMC) and the lateral wall of the medial condyle (LWMC) were performed to set the frontal alignment. To set the axial alignment, the MWMC, LWMC, medial wall of the lateral condyle (MWLC), and medial diagonal line (MDL) anatomical landmarks were investigated. Differences between the ideal measured KA values and values obtained using landmarks were investigated. Use of the MWMC let to similar frontal alignment compared to the ideal KA (2.9° valgus vs 3.4° valgus, p = 0.371) with 46.4% (13/28) of measurements being [Formula: see text] 1.0° different from the ideal KA and only 1 simulation with greater than 4.0° difference. Use of the MWMC led to very similar axial alignments compared to the ideal KA (0.5° internal vs 0.0°, p = 0.960) with 75.0% (21/28) of measurements being [Formula: see text] 1.0 The native orientation of the medial condylar wall seems to be a reliable anatomical landmark for aligning the femoral component in medial KA UKA in both the axial plane and frontal planes. Other assessed landmarks were shown to not be reliable. Clinical and radiographic assessments of the reliability of using the MWMC to set the frontal and axial orientation of the femoral component when performing a medial KA UKA are needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34363490
doi: 10.1007/s00167-021-06683-9
pii: 10.1007/s00167-021-06683-9
pmc: PMC9418071
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3220-3227Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Cicchetti DV, Sparrow SA (1981) Developing criteria for establishing interrater reliability of specific items: applications to assessment of adaptive behavior. Am J Ment Defic 86:127–137
pubmed: 7315877
Deschamps G, Chol C (2011) Fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Patients’ selection and operative technique. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 97:648–661
doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2011.08.003
Eckhoff DG, Bach JM, Spitzer VM, Reinig KD, Bagur MM, Baldini TH et al (2005) Three-dimensional mechanics, kinematics, and morphology of the knee viewed in virtual reality. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(Suppl 2):71–80
pubmed: 16326726
Eckhoff DG, Bach JM, Spitzer VM, Reinig KD, Bagur MM, Baldini TH et al (2003) Three-dimensional morphology and kinematics of the distal part of the femur viewed in virtual reality. Part II. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A(Suppl 4):97–104
doi: 10.2106/00004623-200300004-00012
Eckhoff DG, Dwyer TF, Bach JM, Spitzer VM, Reinig KD (2001) Three-dimensional morphology of the distal part of the femur viewed in virtual reality. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A(Suppl 2):43–50
doi: 10.2106/00004623-200100021-00010
Henckel J, Richards R, Lozhkin K, Harris S, RodriguezyBaena FM, Barrett AR et al (2006) Very low-dose computed tomography for planning and outcome measurement in knee replacement. The imperial knee protocol. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88:1513–1518
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.88B11.17986
Jones CW, Jerabek SA (2018) Current role of computer navigation in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 33:1989–1993
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.01.027
Ng JP, Fan JCH, Lau LCM, Tse TTS, Wan SYC, Hung YW (2020) Can accuracy of component alignment be improved with Oxford UKA Microplasty(R) instrumentation? J Orthop Surg Res 15:354
doi: 10.1186/s13018-020-01868-3
Riviere C, Harman C, Leong A, Cobb J, Maillot C (2019) Kinematic alignment technique for medial OXFORD UKA: an in-silico study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 105:63–70
doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2018.11.005
Riviere C, Lazic S, Boughton O, Wiart Y, Villet L, Cobb J (2018) Current concepts for aligning knee implants: patient-specific or systematic? EFORT Open Rev 3:1–6
doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.170021
Riviere C, Logishetty K, Villet L, Maillot C (2021) Calipered kinematic alignment technique for implanting a Medial Oxford(R): a technical note. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 107:102859
doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2021.102859
Riviere C, Sivaloganathan S, Villet L, Cartier P, Lustig S, Vendittoli PA et al (2021) Kinematic alignment of medial UKA is safe: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06462-6
doi: 10.1007/s00167-021-06462-6
pubmed: 34363490
Robinson BJ, Rees JL, Price AJ, Beard DJ, Murray DW, McLardy Smith P et al (2002) Dislocation of the bearing of the Oxford lateral unicompartmental arthroplasty. A radiological assessment. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84:653–657
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.84B5.0840653
Roussot MA, Vles GF, Oussedik S (2020) Clinical outcomes of kinematic alignment versus mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. EFORT Open Rev 5:486–497
doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190093
Tria AJ, Scuderi GR (2015) Minimally invasive knee arthroplasty: an overview. World J Orthop 6:804–811
doi: 10.5312/wjo.v6.i10.804