Abstract
Fifteen-year survivorship studies demonstrate that total knee replacement has excellent survivorship, with reports of 85 to 97%. However, excellent survivorship does not equate to excellent patient reported outcomes. Noble et al. reported that 14% of their patients were dissatisfied with their outcome with more than half expressing problems with routine activities of daily living. There is also a difference in the patient's subjective assessment of outcome and the surgeon's objective assessment. Dickstein et al. reported that a third of total knee patients were dissatisfied, even though the surgeons felt that their results were excellent. Most of the patients who report lower outcome scores do so because their expectations are not being fulfilled by the total knee replacement surgery.
Perhaps this dissatisfaction is a result of subtle soft tissue imbalance that we have difficulty in assessing intra- and post-operatively. Soft tissue balancing techniques still rely on subjective feel for appropriate ligamentous tension by the surgeon. Surgical experience and case volume play a major role in each surgeon's relative skill in balancing the knee properly.
New technology of “smart trials” with embedded microelectronics, used in the knee with the medial retinaculum closed, can provide dynamic, intra-operative feedback regarding quantitative compartment pressures and component tracking. While visualising a graphical interface, the surgeon can assess the effect of sequential soft tissue releases performed to balance the knee. These smart trials also have embedded accelerometers used to confirm that one is balancing a properly aligned knee and to provide the option of doing small bony corrections rather than soft tissue releases to obtain balance.
A multi-center study using smart trials is demonstrating dramatically better outcomes.
