THE USE OF COMPUTER TOMOGRAPHY (CT) TO MEASURE THE ACCURACY OF COMPUTER ASSISTED KNEE ARTHROPLASTY

Abstract

We used computer tomography (CT) to measure the outcome of knee-arthroplasty in our prospective double-blind randomised controlled study of our active constraint robotic system ACROBOT.

All patients in our trial had pre-operative CT scan and proprietary software used to plan the size, position and orientation of the implants. Post operatively a further CT scan was performed and measurement studies performed using 3 different methods of manipulating the CT dicom data.

Method 1, a quick and simple method of implant assessment that measures the varus-valgus orientation of the implants relative to the axes of the long bones

Two landmarks each are used to define the individual mechanical axis for both the femur and tibia, for consistency these landmarks are the very ones used in the planning stage on the pre-operative CT.

Landmarks are then placed on the implants in order to measure their tilt relative to the mechanical axes. An appropriate Hounsfield threshold (2800) was used to image the metal components. The angle between the individual mechanical axis and the prosthetic component was calculated.

Method 2, detailed and accurate comparisons between the planned and achieved component positions in 3D are made. Co-registration of the precisely planned CT based models with surface models from the post-op scan gives real measurements of implant position enabling the measurement of the accuracy of component in an all six degrees of freedom giving both translation and rotation errors in all three planes.

The process of alignment was achieved by surface-to-surface registration. An implementation of the iterative closest point algorithm was used to register matching surfaces on the objects to be registered. A polygon mesh of the implant, provided by the manufacturer, defined the surface shape of each size of implant. This was used both to define the planned position and to register to the post-operative scan. Method 3, in this study we quantified post-operative error in knee arthroplasty using one value for each component whilst retaining 3D perspective.

The position of the prosthetic components in the post-op scan is calculated and individual transformation matrix computed which is matched to the transformation matrices for the planned components.

The pre-operative CT based component positions were co-registered to the post-operative CT scan and values for the intersection (volumetric) between the digitised images (both planned and achieved) were calculated. Both the co-registered femoral and tibial component’s intersection was quantified with software packages supporting Boolean volume analysis

Method 1, the sum of the two, independently measured, angles allows an estimate of the post-operative alignment of the load bearing axes in the two bones.

Method 2, 3D CT allows precise measurements of the achieved position for each component in all three planes. Six values, three angular and three translational, define the achieved component position relative to the planned position.

Method 3, the greater the percentage intersection between the planned and achieved images, the greater the accuracy of the surgery. Owing to the shape of the components (large articular surface) large intersections demonstrate more accurate reconstruction of the joint line.

In the recent past the lack of a sufficiently accurate tool to plan and measure the accuracy of component placement has resulted in an inability to detect and study radiological and functional outliers and hence the hypnotised relationship between prosthetic joint placement and outcome has been difficult to prove.

CT offers us the ability to accurately describe the actual position and deviation from plan of component placement in knee arthroplasty. Whilst X-ray has the intrinsic problems of perspective distortion magnification errors and orientation uncertainties CT can be used to define ‘true’ planes for two dimensional (2D) measurements and permits the comparison in three dimensions (3D) between the planned and achieved component positions.