Small Improvements in Mechanical Axis Alignment Achieved With MRI versus CT-based Patient-specific Instruments in TKA: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research

Volumn 472, Issue 10, 2014, Pages 2913-2922

  Pfitzner, Tilman ^a   Abdel, Matthew P ^b   von Roth, Philipp ^a   Perka, Carsten ^a   Hommel, Hagen ^c  

^a CHARITÉ UNIVERSITÄTSMEDIZIN BERLIN   (Germany)

^b MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^c Hospital Märkisch Oderland   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LOW MOLECULAR WEIGHT HEPARIN;

ACCURACY; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BODY MASS; CLINICAL EVALUATION; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; EMBOLISM PREVENTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; KNEE ENDOPROSTHESIS; KNEE SOCIETY FUNCTION SCORE; KNEE SOCIETY PAIN SCORE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OPERATION DURATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAIN ASSESSMENT; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT; VENOUS THROMBOEMBOLISM; WESTERN ONTARIO AND MCMASTER UNIVERSITIES OSTEOARTHRITIS INDEX; X RAY FILM; BIOMECHANICS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; COMPUTER ASSISTED SURGERY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONVALESCENCE; EQUIPMENT; GERMANY; KNEE; KNEE ARTHROPLASTY; KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS; KNEE PROSTHESIS; MASS COMMUNICATION; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PATIENT SELECTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROSTHESIS; PROSTHESIS FAILURE; RADIOGRAPHY; STATISTICS; TIME; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

AGED; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, KNEE; BIOMECHANICAL PHENOMENA; COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN; DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION; FEMALE; GERMANY; HUMANS; KNEE JOINT; KNEE PROSTHESIS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OPERATIVE TIME; OSTEOARTHRITIS, KNEE; PATIENT SELECTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; PROSTHESIS FAILURE; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; SURGERY, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; TIME FACTORS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84908609300     PISSN: 0009921X     EISSN: 15281132     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11999-014-3784-6     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Ast MP, Nam D, Haas SB. Patient-specific instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty: a review. Orthop Clin North Am. 2012;43:e17–22.
2. Barrett W, Hoeffel D, Dalury D, Mason JB, Murphy J, Himden S. In-vivo alignment comparing patient specific instrumentation with both conventional and computer assisted surgery (CAS) instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29:343–347.
3. Berger RA, Crossett LS, Jacobs JJ, Rubash HE. Malrotation causing patellofemoral complications after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;356:144–153.
4. Bhattee G, Moonot P, Govindaswamy R, Pope A, Fiddian N, Harvey A. Does malrotation of components correlate with patient dissatisfaction following secondary patellar resurfacing? Knee. 2014;21:247–251.
5. Bombardier CH, Buchwald D. Outcome and prognosis of patients with chronic fatigue vs chronic fatigue syndrome. Arch Intern Med. 1995;155:2105–2110.
6. Bousson V, Lowitz T, Laouisset L, Engelke K, Laredo JD. CT imaging for the investigation of subchondral bone in knee osteoarthritis. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23 (suppl 8):S861–865.
7. Brin YS, Nikolaou VS, Joseph L, Zukor DJ, Antoniou J. Imageless computer assisted versus conventional total knee replacement: a Bayesian meta-analysis of 23 comparative studies. Int Orthop. 2011;35:331–339.
8. Cenni F, Timoncini A, Ensini A, Tamarri S, Belvedere C, D’Angeli V, Giannini S, Leardini A. Three-dimensional implant position and orientation after total knee replacement performed with patient-specific instrumentation systems. J Orthop Res. 2014;32:331–337.
9. Chan WP, Lang P, Stevens MP, Sack K, Majumdar S, Stoller DW, Basch C, Genant HK. Osteoarthritis of the knee: comparison of radiography, CT, and MR imaging to assess extent and severity. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1991;157:799–806.
10. Chen JY, Yeo SJ, Yew AK, Tay DK, Chia SL, Lo NN, Chin PL. The radiological outcomes of patient-specific instrumentation versus conventional total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014; 22:630–635.
11. Cheng T, Zhang G, Zhang X. Imageless navigation system does not improve component rotational alignment in total knee arthroplasty. J Surg Res. 2011;171:590–600.
12. Cheng T, Zhao S, Peng X, Zhang X. Does computer-assisted surgery improve postoperative leg alignment and implant positioning following total knee arthroplasty? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20:1307–1322.
13. Cooke TD, Scudamore RA, Bryant JT, Sorbie C, Siu D, Fisher B. A quantitative approach to radiography of the lower limb: principles and applications. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991;73:715–720.
14. Daniilidis K, Tibesku CO. Frontal plane alignment after total knee arthroplasty using patient-specific instruments. Int Orthop. 2013;37:45–50.
15. Ensini A, Timoncini A, Cenni F, Belvedere C, Fusai F, Leardini A, Giannini S. Intra- and post-operative accuracy assessments of two different patient-specific instrumentation systems for total knee replacement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;22:621–629.
16. Hafez MA, Chelule KL, Seedhom BB, Sherman KP. Computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty using patient-specific templating. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;444:184–192.
17. Han HS, Seong SC, Lee S, Lee MC. Rotational alignment of femoral components in total knee arthroplasty: nonimage-based navigation system versus conventional technique. Orthopedics. 2006;29(10 suppl):S148–151.
18. Heyse TJ, Tibesku CO. Improved femoral component rotation in TKA using patient-specific instrumentation. Knee. 2014;21:268–271.
19. Howell SM, Hodapp EE, Kuznik K, Hull ML. In vivo adduction and reverse axial rotation (external) of the tibial component can be minimized. Orthopedics. 2009;32:319.
20. Hunt MA, Fowler PJ, Birmingham TB, Jenkyn TR, Giffin JR. Foot rotational effects on radiographic measures of lower limb alignment. Can J Surg. 2006;49:401–406.
21. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;248:13–14.
22. Kalke RJ, Di Primio GA, Schweitzer ME. MR and CT arthrography of the knee. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2012;16:57–68.
23. Kamat YD, Aurakzai KM, Adhikari AR, Matthews D, Kalairajah Y, Field RE. Does computer navigation in total knee arthroplasty improve patient outcome at midterm follow-up? Int Orthop. 2009;33:1567–1570.
24. Koch PP, Muller D, Pisan M, Fucentese SF. Radiographic accuracy in TKA with a CT-based patient-specific cutting block technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21:2200–2205.
25. Lombardi AV Jr, Berend KR, Ng VY. Neutral mechanical alignment: a requirement for successful TKA: affirms. Orthopedics. 2011;34:e504–506.
26. Lustig S, Scholes CJ, Oussedik SI, Kinzel V, Coolican MR, Parker DA. Unsatisfactory accuracy as determined by computer navigation of VISIONAIRE patient-specific instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28:469–473.
27. MacDessi SJ, Jang B, Harris IA, Wheatley E, Bryant C, Chen DB. A comparison of alignment using patient specific guides, computer navigation and conventional instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty. Knee. 2014;21:406–409.
28. Martin A, Sheinkop MB, Langhenry MM, Widemschek M, Benesch T, von Strempel A. Comparison of two minimally invasive implantation instrument-sets for total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010;18:359–366.
29. Matsuda S, Kawahara S, Okazaki K, Tashiro Y, Iwamoto Y. Postoperative alignment and ROM affect patient satisfaction after TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:127–133.
30. Matziolis G, Boenicke H, Pfiel S, Wassilew G, Perka C. The gap technique does not rotate the femur parallel to the epicondylar axis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011;131:163–166.
31. Matziolis G, Pfitzner T, Thiele K, Matziolis D, Perka C. Influence of the position of the fibular head after implantation of a total knee prosthesis on femorotibial rotation. Orthopedics. 2011;34:e610–614.
32. Minoda Y, Kobayashi A, Iwaki H, Ohashi H, Takaoka K. TKA sagittal alignment with navigation systems and conventional techniques vary only a few degrees. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:1000–1006.
33. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gotzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG; Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Group. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:e1–37.
34. Nam D, McArthur BA, Cross MB, Pearle AD, Mayman DJ, Haas SB. Patient-specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: a review. J Knee Surg. 2012;25:213–219.
35. Ng VY, DeClaire JH, Berend KR, Gulick BC, Lombardi AV Jr. Improved accuracy of alignment with patient-specific positioning guides compared with manual instrumentation in TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:99–107.
36. Noble JW Jr, Moore CA, Liu N. The value of patient-matched instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27:153–155.
37. Nunley RM, Ellison BS, Zhu J, Ruh EL, Howell SM, Barrack RL. Do patient-specific guides improve coronal alignment in total knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:895–902.
38. Parratte S, Blanc G, Boussemart T, Ollivier M, Le Corroller T, Argenson JN. Rotation in total knee arthroplasty: no difference between patient-specific and conventional instrumentation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21:2213–2219.
39. Parratte S, Pagnano MW, Trousdale RT, Berry DJ. Effect of postoperative mechanical axis alignment on the fifteen-year survival of modern, cemented total knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:2143–2149.
40. Pfitzner T, Rohner E, Preininger B, Perka C, Matziolis G. Femur positioning in navigated total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2012;35(10 suppl):45–49.
41. Pietsch M, Djahani O, Hochegger M, Plattner F, Hofmann S. Patient-specific total knee arthroplasty: the importance of planning by the surgeon. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21:2220–2226.
42. Pietsch M, Hofmann S. [Value of radiographic examination of the knee joint for the orthopedic surgeon][in German]. Radiologe. 2006;46:55–64.
43. Ritter MA, Faris PM, Keating EM, Meding JB. Postoperative alignment of total knee replacement: its effect on survival. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;299:153–156.
44. Roemer FW, Crema MD, Trattnig S, Guermazi A. Advances in imaging of osteoarthritis and cartilage. Radiology. 2011;260:332–354.
45. Shah DA, Madden LV. Nonparametric analysis of ordinal data in designed factorial experiments. Phytopathology. 2004;94:33–43.
46. Silva A, Sampaio R, Pinto E. Patient-specific instrumentation improves tibial component rotation in TKA. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;22:636–642.
47. Smith TO, Drew BT, Toms AP, Donell ST, Hing CB. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging, magnetic resonance arthrography and computed tomography for the detection of chondral lesions of the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20:2367–2379.
48. Tibesku CO, Hofer P, Portegies W, Ruys CJ, Fennema P. Benefits of using customized instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: results from an activity-based costing model. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013;133:405–411.
49. Victor J, Dujardin J, Vandenneucker H, Arnout N, Bellemans J. Patient-specific guides do not improve accuracy in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:263–271.
50. Watters TS, Mather RC 3rd, Browne JA, Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr, Bolognesi MP. Analysis of procedure-related costs and proposed benefits of using patient-specific approach in total knee arthroplasty. J Surg Orthop Adv. 2011;20:112–116.
51. Windsor RE, Scuderi GR, Moran MC, Insall JN. Mechanisms of failure of the femoral and tibial components in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;248:15–19; discussion 19–20.
52. Yaffe MA, Koo SS, Stulberg SD. Radiographic and navigation measurements of TKA limb alignment do not correlate. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:2736–2744.