This study aimed to explore the biological and clinical importance of dysregulated key genes in osteoarthritis (OA) patients at the cartilage level to find potential biomarkers and targets for diagnosing and treating OA. Six sets of gene expression profiles were obtained from the Gene Expression Omnibus database. Differential expression analysis, weighted gene coexpression network analysis (WGCNA), and multiple machine-learning algorithms were used to screen crucial genes in osteoarthritic cartilage, and genome enrichment and functional annotation analyses were used to decipher the related categories of gene function. Single-sample gene set enrichment analysis was performed to analyze immune cell infiltration. Correlation analysis was used to explore the relationship among the hub genes and immune cells, as well as markers related to articular cartilage degradation and bone mineralization.Aims
Methods
Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an effective operation for the management of osteoarthritis of the knee. Conventional technique utilizing manual instrumentation (MI) allows for reproducible and accurate execution of the procedure. The most common techniques make use of intramedullary femoral guides and either extrameduallary or intrameduallary tibial guides. While these methods can achieve excellent results in the majority of patients, those with ipsilateral hardware, post-traumatic deformity or abnormal anatomy may preclude the accurate use of these techniques. Patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) is an alternative innovation for total knee arthroplasty. Utilizing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT), custom guide blocks are fabricated based on a patient's unique anatomy. This allows for the benefits of computer assisted navigation (CAN) but without the increased operative times or the high learning curve associated with it. Furthermore it allows the use of familiar cutting blocks and guides to check the accuracy of the PSI guide blocks. In this study we sought to evaluate the accuracy of PSI techniques in patients with previous ipsilateral hardware, which would make the use of MI technically challenging and possibly subject to inaccuracy. After reviewing our database of 300 PSI total knee arthroplasty patients, 16 patients were identified (10 male, 6 female) using the Zimmer NexGen Patient Specific Instrumentation System. Fourteen patients included in the study had a preexisting total hip arthroplasty on the ipsilateral side, 1 had a preexisting sliding hip screw, and 1 patient had a preexisting cephalomedullary nail. Postoperative mechanical axis alignment measurements were performed using plain long-standing radiographs. The American Knee Society Score was used to evaluate clinical outcomes postoperatively.Introduction:
Methods:
Patient specific instrumentation (PSI) generates customized guides from a magnetic resonance imaging based preoperative plan for use in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). PSI software must be able to accommodate differences in implant design. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether any differences in the accuracy of limb alignment, component alignment, component sizing, or bony resection could be identified in patients undergoing PSI TKA with identical PSI software and one of two different implant systems. In this case-control study, two different implant systems from the same manufacturer were evaluated in 37 consecutive PSI TKA (Group 1) and 123 consecutive PSI TKA (Group 2) performed by a single surgeon. A third group (Group 3) consisted of 12 consecutive TKA performed with manual instrumentation and the same implant system as Group 1. Identical software was used to generate a preoperative plan from which planned limb alignment, component alignment, component sizes, and bony resection were determined. Intraoperatively, actual component sizes, bony resection, and recut frequency were determined. Long-standing and lateral radiographs were obtained preoperatively and 4-weeks postoperatively to evaluate limb and component alignment.Introduction:
Methods:
Patient specific instruments (PSI) and computer-assisted surgery (CAS) are innovative technologies that offer the potential to improve the accuracy and reproducibility with which a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is performed. It has not been established whether clinical, functional, or radiographic outcomes between PSI, CAS, and manual TKA differ in the hands of an experienced TKA surgeon. The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical, functional and radiographic outcomes between TKA performed with PSI, CAS, and manual instruments at short-term follow-up. Our hypothesis was that at early follow-up, we would be unable to elucidate any significant differences between the groups using the most commonly utilized outcomes measures. 40 PSI, 38 CAS, and 40 manual TKA were performed by a single surgeon. The groups were similar in regards to age, sex, and preoperative diagnosis. The Knee Society Scoring System was used to evaluate patient clinical and functional outcome scores preoperatively and at 1 and 6 months postoperatively. Long-standing AP radiographs were obtained pre and postoperative to evaluate mechanical axis alignment.Introduction
Methods
Computer-assisted surgery (CAS) is a tool developed to allow accurate limb and implant alignment in total knee arthroplasty [TKA]. The strength of the technology is that it allows the surgeon to assess soft tissue balance and ligament laxity in flexion and extension. The accuracy of this ligament balancing technology depends upon an accurate determination of femoral component size. This size is established with intraoperative surface registration techniques. Customised instrumentation (CI) is a measured resection technique in which component size is established on preoperative 3D MRI reconstructions. The purpose of this study is to determine how these two computer-based technologies compare with regard to the accuracy with which femoral component size is established in TKA. 67 TKA were performed using CI and 30 TKA were performed using CAS by a single surgeon. CI-predicted and CAS-predicted femoral component size were compared to actual component selection. The process by which CI and CAS perform an anatomic registration was evaluated. The CI and CAS systems accurately predicted surgeon-selected femoral component size in 89% and 43% of cases, respectively (p<0.001). The discrepancy between predicted and actual femoral component size with CI and CAS was 0.1 and 0.8 sizes, respectively (p<0.001). The maximum deviation between predicted and actual femoral component size was greater in CAS than in PMI (three sizes versus one size, respectively). The anterior cortex cut was flush in 92% of CI cases. The rotation profile was consistent with Whiteside's line in 95% of CI cases. The CI system was both more accurate and more precise than the CAS navigation system in predicting femoral component size in TKA. CI utilises preoperative MR imaging to generate femoral component sizing based on optimizing medial-lateral fit with a measured posterior femoral bone resection. CAS utilises surface registration techniques based on anatomic site registration that may be subject to intraoperative measurement error due to difficult visualization (femoral epicondyles), inherent subjectivity (Whiteside's line) or anatomic variation (hypoplastic posterior condyles). CI bases implant sizing solely on reproducing an anatomical fit and a measured resection technique, whereas CAS attempts to balance an anatomic fit with optimal soft tissue balancing. In this study, the surgeon's final component selection was more likely to be in accordance with the CI rather than the CAS sizing algorithm. The CI system was capable of accurate femoral component placement in TKA. This study suggests that intraoperative surface registration may not be as accurate as preoperative 3D MRI reconstructions for establishing optimal femoral component sizing. Surgeons using intraoperative navigation based surface registration need to be aware of this when making femoral component size selection, establishing ligament balance, and determining femoral rotation.
