CT Morphometric Analysis of Medial Tibial Condyles: Are the Currently Available Designs of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Suitable for Indian Knees?
CT morphometry
Implant size and shape mismatch
Indian knees
Medial tibial condyle
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty
Journal
Indian journal of orthopaedics
ISSN: 0019-5413
Titre abrégé: Indian J Orthop
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 0137736
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2021
Oct 2021
Historique:
received:
13
01
2021
accepted:
17
05
2021
entrez:
26
11
2021
pubmed:
27
11
2021
medline:
27
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The main purpose of this study is to assess the compatibility of medial tibial condyle (MTC) morphometry of Indian population with that of six contemporary UKA prostheses tibial components. We hypothesized that from the currently available UKA designs at least one would fit the MTC morphometry optimally as per the manufacturer's recommendation. We used CT morphometric data of 100 (66 males and 34 females) consecutive nonarthritic adult knees with reference to the MTC to assess the compatibility of currently available (in India) UKA prostheses. Each MTC was measured in the anteroposterior dimension, mediolateral at pre-defined points and the MTC aspect ratio calculated. Proportion of knees which could be optimally fitted with the existing UKA tibial components was calculated. The mean age was 39.6 (SD 15.9) years. Anteroposterior and mediolateral dimensions in males were higher as compared to females ( Currently available UKA implants do not provide optimal tibial fit in nearly 25% of Indian patients. A surgeon needs to be aware of these limitations of existing implants when considering UKA.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The main purpose of this study is to assess the compatibility of medial tibial condyle (MTC) morphometry of Indian population with that of six contemporary UKA prostheses tibial components. We hypothesized that from the currently available UKA designs at least one would fit the MTC morphometry optimally as per the manufacturer's recommendation.
METHODS
METHODS
We used CT morphometric data of 100 (66 males and 34 females) consecutive nonarthritic adult knees with reference to the MTC to assess the compatibility of currently available (in India) UKA prostheses. Each MTC was measured in the anteroposterior dimension, mediolateral at pre-defined points and the MTC aspect ratio calculated. Proportion of knees which could be optimally fitted with the existing UKA tibial components was calculated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The mean age was 39.6 (SD 15.9) years. Anteroposterior and mediolateral dimensions in males were higher as compared to females (
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Currently available UKA implants do not provide optimal tibial fit in nearly 25% of Indian patients. A surgeon needs to be aware of these limitations of existing implants when considering UKA.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34824713
doi: 10.1007/s43465-021-00429-y
pii: 429
pmc: PMC8586401
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1135-1143Informations de copyright
© Indian Orthopaedics Association 2021.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of InterestThe author C reports grants and personal fees from Zimmer Biomet, personal fees from Smith and Nephew, grants and personal fees from Depuy Synthes, personal fees from Medacta International, personal fees from Meril Life, grants from Invibio, grants and personal fees from GSK, personal fees from JRI, outside the submitted work.
Références
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010 Mar;18(3):352-8
pubmed: 19629438
J Arthroplasty. 2000 Jan;15(1):79-85
pubmed: 10654467
NIH Consens State Sci Statements. 2003 Dec 8-10;20(1):1-34
pubmed: 17308549
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Oct;32(10):3228-3237.e2
pubmed: 28641970
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020 Apr;28(4):1105-1112
pubmed: 31570962
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Jan;475(1):170-182
pubmed: 27704318
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Sep;32(9):2878-2886
pubmed: 28457760
Knee. 2007 Aug;14(4):295-300
pubmed: 17600719
J Arthroplasty. 2002 Dec;17(8):1028-32
pubmed: 12478514
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2007 Apr;15(4):436-42
pubmed: 16964513
Bone Joint J. 2015 Oct;97-B(10 Suppl A):3-8
pubmed: 26430080
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020 Jun;28(6):1789-1796
pubmed: 31263927
Orthopedics. 2007 May;30(5 Suppl):28-31
pubmed: 17549863
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A Suppl 4:115-22
pubmed: 14652402
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001 Nov;(392):272-8
pubmed: 11716395
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2014 Sep;22(9):1241-50
pubmed: 25042552
Bone Joint Res. 2017 Aug;6(8):522-529
pubmed: 28855192
J Knee Surg. 2019 Mar;32(3):205-210
pubmed: 29490403
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999 Oct;(367):50-60
pubmed: 10546598
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014 Dec;22(12):2911-23
pubmed: 25217314
J Clin Diagn Res. 2014 Aug;8(8):AC10-3
pubmed: 25302182
Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2014;48(2):147-51
pubmed: 24747621
J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2020 Mar;11(Suppl 2):S228-S233
pubmed: 32189946
Int J Rheum Dis. 2011 May;14(2):167-74
pubmed: 21518316
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993 Oct;(295):205-13
pubmed: 8403650
Bone Joint J. 2014 Mar;96-B(3):345-9
pubmed: 24589789
J Orthop Res. 2013 May;31(5):821-8
pubmed: 23192787
J Arthroplasty. 1992 Jun;7(2):137-43
pubmed: 1613519
Knee. 2009 Oct;16(5):310-3
pubmed: 19188069
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998 Nov;80(6):983-9
pubmed: 9853489