Abstract
INTRODUCTION
Although several meta-analyses have been performed on total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using computer-assisted orthopaedic surgery (CAOS) [1], understanding the inter-site variations of the surgical profiles may improve the interpretation of the results. Moreover, information on the global variations of how TKA is performed may benefit the development of CAOS systems that can better address geographic-specific operative needs. With increased application of CAOS [2], surgeon preferences collected globally offers unprecedented opportunity to advance geographic-specific knowledge in TKA. The purpose of this study was to investigate geographic variations in the application of a contemporary CAOS system in TKA.
Materials and Methods
Technical records on more than 4000 CAOS TKAs (ExactechGPS, Blue-Ortho, Grenoble, FR) between October 2012 and January 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 682 personalized surgical profiles, set up based on surgeon's preferences, were reviewed. These profiles encompass an extensive set of surgical parameters including the number of steps to be navigated, the sequence of the surgical steps, the definition of the anatomical references, and the parameters associated with the targeted cuts. The profiles were compared between four geographic regions: United States (US), Europe (EU), Asia (AS), and Australia (AU) for cruciate-retaining (CR) and posterior-stabilized (PS) designs. Clinically relevant statistical differences (CRSD, defined as significant differences in means ≥1°/mm) were identified (significance defined as p<0.05).
Results
For resection parameters, CRSDs were found between regions in posterior tibial slope (PTS), tibial resection depth, as well as femoral flexion for both CR and PS profiles (marked in Table 1). Regarding anatomical references, US was the only region using posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) as the reference for CR resection depth (Table 1). Differences in percentage of preference were found in the anatomical references for tibial varus/valgus, tibial resection depth, femoral varus/valgus, femoral axial rotation, and ankle center (Table 1,2). For surgical steps, EU and AU were found to apply gap balancing technique as a common practice for the PS designs, while for the CR designs, EU and AU considerably adopted this technique (Table 2). For PS designs, EU and AU profiles preferred tibial first in the resection workflow, compared to a more balanced preference for other regions. For CR designs, US profiles were in favour of performing the femoral resection first in the workflow, compared to a strong favouring of tibial first resection workflow in EU and AS Am regions.
Discussion
This study demonstrated clinically significant geographic differences may exist in the surgeons' preference of surgical parameters, anatomical references, and surgical workflow steps during TKA. These differences may reflect the geographic variations of surgeon training, surgical philosophy, or the specific characteristics of the patient population, which warrants further investigation. The strength of this study was that it is the first study to date that covered all the available surgical profiles spanning the application history of a specific CAOS system. As such, variation due to the operational differences of multiple systems was avoided.
For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly (see Info & Metrics tab above).
