Abstract
Fifteen-year survivorship studies demonstrate that total knee replacement have 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 due 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 intraoperatively and postoperatively. 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 and accelerometers, used in the knee with the medial retinaculum closed, can provide dynamic, intraoperative feedback regarding knee and component alignment along with quantitative compartment pressures and component tracking. After visualising the resultant data on a graphical interface, the surgeon can decide whether to perform a soft tissue balance or redo the bone cuts. If soft tissue balancing is performed, the surgeon can assess the pressures effect of sequential soft tissue releases performed to balance the knee.
A multi-center study using smart trials has demonstrated dramatically better outcomes at six months and one year.
