COMPARISON OF THE PREOPERATIVE TEMPLATING IN TKA BETWEEN CONVENTIONAL 2D AND CT-BASED 3D PROCEDURES

Abstract

Introduction: Preoperative planning is an important part of the total knee arthroplasty(TKA) surgical procedure.

In joint arthroplasty, the use of a templating system has been recommended and it is routinely used with most designs. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of preoperative templating in TKA between conventional two-dimensional (2D) and computed tomography (CT)-based 3D procedures in order to confirm the necessity of using 3D evaluations for preoperative planning.

Method: One-hundred consecutive primary TKAs performed during the period between December 2005 and May 2009 were analyzed. The mean age of the patients was 73.3 years (range, 33 to 90 years). Preoperative templating was performed for each TKA using both conventional 2D radiographs (both anteroposterior and lateral views) which were analyzed by a single senior surgeon. Preoperative CT scans of the knee were performed and a CT-based 3D image model (superimposing the computer aided design model of the implant) was generated using KneeCAS (KneeCAS: Knee Computer-Assisted System) and then was analyzed by a radiology technologist without any knowledge of the 2D procedure. Based on the operation notes, we determined which size implant had been inserted at the time of surgery and used this as the gold standard. The accuracy and reliability were assessed for all measurements of the two different templating procedures (2D and CT-based 3D procedures)

The Chi-square test for independence for paired observations was used to analyze the accuracy. The weighted kappa test was used to analyze reliability.

Results: 56% of the 2D procedures were found to be an exact match. This increased to 98% for the template sizes within one size above or below that used and 2% were two sizes or more adrift. Otherwise, 59% of the CT-based 3D procedures were an exact match; 98% were within one size and 2% were two sizes or more adrift. The CT-based 3D procedure was slightly more accurate than the 2D procedure. However, the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.67). The weighted kappa coefficient of the 2D procedure was 0.49 (which indicates a moderate agreement), while that of the CT-based 3D procedure was 0.49 (which indicates a moderate agreement). The results of the weighted kappa coefficients were not statistically significant (p = 0.65).

Conclusion: Computer-assisted surgery systems are used often for preoperative planning in TKA. However, our results do not support the superiority of 3D preoperative templating to 2D conventional evaluation in predicting implant size. Thus, 3D templating may not be necessary for preoperative planning in TKA.