Abstract
During total knee replacement (TKR), surgical navigation systems (SNS) allow accurate prosthesis component implantation by tracking the tibio-femoral joint (TFJ) kinematics in the original articulation at the beginning of the operation, after relevant trial components implantation, and, ultimately, after final component implantation and cementation. It is known that TKR also alters normal patello-femoral joint (PFJ) kinematics resulting frequently in PFJ disorders and TKR failure. More importantly, patellar tracking in case of resurfacing is further affected by patellar bone preparation and relevant component positioning. The traditional technique used to perform patellar resurfacing, even in navigated TKR, is based only on visual inspection of the patellar articular aspect for clamping patellar cutting jig and on a simple calliper to check for patellar thickness before and after bone cut, and, thus, without any computer assistance. Even though the inclusion in in-vivo navigated TKR of a procedure for supporting also patellar resurfacing based on patient-specific bone morphology seems fundamental, this have been completely disregarded till now, whose efficacy being assessed only in-vitro. This procedure has been developed, together with relevant software and surgical instrumentation, as an extension of current SNS, i.e. TKR is navigated, at the same time measuring the effects of every surgical action on PFJ kinematics. The aim of this study was to report on the first in-vivo experiences during TKR with patellar resurfacing.
Four patients affected by primary gonarthrosis were implanted with a fixed bearing posterior-stabilised prosthesis (NRG, Stryker®-Orthopaedics, Mahwah, NJ-USA) with patellar resurfacing. All TKR were performed by means of two SNS (Stryker®-Leibinger, Freiburg, Germany) with the standard femoral/tibial trackers, the pointer, and a specially-designed patellar tracker. The novel procedure for patellar tracking was approved by the local ethical committee; the patients gave informed consent prior the surgery. This procedure implies the use of a second system, i.e. the patellar SNS (PSNS), with dedicated software for supporting patellar resurfacing and relative data processing/storing, in addition to the traditional knee SNS (KSNS). TFJ anatomical survey and kinematics data are shared between the two. Before surgery, both systems were initialised and the patellar tracker was assembled with a sterile procedure by shaping a metal grid mounted with three markers to be tracked by PSNS only. The additional patellar-resection-plane and patellar-cut-verification probes were instrumented with a standard tracker and a relevant reference frame was defined on these by digitisation with PSNS. Afterwards, the procedures for standard navigation were performed to calculate preoperative joint deformities and TFJ kinematics. The anatomical survey was performed also with PSNS, with relevant patellar anatomical reference frame definition and PFJ kinematics assessment according to a recent proposal. Standard procedures for femoral and tibial component implantation, and TFJ kinematics assessment were then performed by using relevant trial components. Afterwards, the procedure for patellar resection begun. Once the surgeon had arranged and fixed the patellar cutting jig at the desired position, the patellar-resection-plane probe was inserted into the slot for the saw blade. With this in place, the PSNS captured tracker data to calculate the planned level of patellar bone cut and the patellar cut orientation. Then the cut was executed, and the accuracy of this actual bone cut was assessed by means of the patellar-cut-verification probe. The trial patellar component was positioned, and, with all three trial components in place, TFJ and PFJ kinematics were assessed. Possible adjustments in component positioning could still be performed, until both kinematics were satisfactory. Finally, final components were implanted and cemented, and final TFJ and PFJ kinematics were acquired. A sterile calliper and pre- and post-implantation lower limb X-rays were used to check for the patellar thickness and final lower limb alignment. The novel surgical technique was performed successfully in all four cases without complication, resulting in 30 min longer TKR. The final lower limb alignment was within 0.5°, the resurfaced patella was 0.4±1.3 mm thinner than in the native, the patellar cut was 1.5°±3.0° laterally tilted. PFJ kinematics was taken within the reference normality. The patella implantation parameters were confirmed also by X-ray inspection; discrepancies in thickness up to 5 mm were observed between SNS- and calliper-based measurements.
At the present experimental phase, a second separate PSNS was utilised not to affect the standard navigated TKR. The results reported support relevance, feasibility and efficacy of patellar tracking and PFJ kinematics assessment in in-vivo navigated TKR. The encouraging in-vivo results may lay ground for the design of a future clinical patella navigation system the surgeon could use to perform a more comprehensive assessment of the original whole knee anatomy and kinematics, i.e. including also PFJ. Patellar bone preparation would be supported for suitable patellar component positioning in case of resurfacing but, conceptually, also in not resurfacing if patellar anatomy and tracking assessment by SNS reveals no abnormality. After suitable adjustment and further tests, in the future if this procedure will be routinely applied during navigated TKR, abnormalities at both TFJ and PFJ can be corrected intra-operatively by more cautious bone cut preparation on the femur, tibia and also patella, in case of resurfacing, and by correct prosthetic component positioning.
