INTRODUCTION

In computer-aided total knee arthroplasty (TKA), surgical navigation systems (SNS) allow accurate tibio-femoral joint (TFJ) prosthesis implantation only. Unfortunately, TKA alters also normal patello-femoral joint (PFJ) functioning. Particularly, without patellar resurfacing, PFJ kinematics is influenced by TFJ implantation; with resurfacing, this is further affected by patellar implantation. Patellar resurfacing is performed only by visual inspections and a simple calliper, i.e. without computer assistance.

Patellar resurfacing and motion via patient-specific bone morphology had been assessed successfully in-vitro and in-vivo in pilot studies aimed at including these evaluations in traditional navigated TKA.

The aim of this study was to report the current experiences in-vivo in two patient cohorts during TKA with patellar resurfacing.

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.

Background and purpose: Implantation of the femoral component at 10 to 15 degrees of anteversion is recommended in total hip arthroplasty. Surgical guidelines suggest that the lower leg be positioned horizontally or vertically with the knee flexed to 90° (figure of four). By constructing a perpendicular axis (a “figure-of-four” axis) to the lower leg, anteversion of the stem is approximated. This study was performed to validate the figure-of-four axis as a reliable intraoperative tool to approximate the retrocondylar line as reference for stem version.

Method: In 21 cadavers placed supine on an operating table, the lower legs were aligned to the horizontal plane. Using a box column drill, Steinmann nails were inserted perpendicular to the lower leg into the medial epicondyles. The Steinmann nails were replaced by cannulated titanium screws, representing the figure-of-four axis. The femoral neck axes, retrocondylar lines and the figure-of-four axes were determined using CT images of the specimen.

Results: The median version of the femoral neck axis was anteversion of 9.8° (IQR 4.5°–15.1°). The median figure-of-four axis showed a deviation of 0.5° (IQR −2.1°−2°) in relation to the retrocondylar line, whereas the median difference of the axis in relation to the femoral neck axis was 9.5° (IQR −13.6° – −2.1°).

Interpretation: The figure-of-four axis, being nearly parallel to the retrocondylar line, is a valid indirect method to determine stem version intraoperatively in patients without varus/valgus deviations of the knee.

In navigated total hip arthroplasty, the pelvis and the femur are tracked by means of rigid bodies fixed directly to the bones. Exact tracking throughout the procedure requires that the connection between the marker and bone remains stable in terms of translation and rotation. We carried out a cadaver study to compare the intra-operative stability of markers consisting of an anchoring screw with a rotational stabiliser and of pairs of pins and wires of different diameters connected with clamps. These devices were tested at different locations in the femur. Three human cadavers were placed supine on an operating table, with a reference marker positioned in the area of the greater trochanter. K-wires (3.2 mm), Steinman pins (3 and 4 mm), Apex pins (3 and 4 mm), and a standard screw were used as fixation devices. They were positioned medially in the proximal third of the femur, ventrally in the middle third and laterally in the distal portion. In six different positions of the leg, the spatial positions were recorded with a navigation system.

Compared with the standard single screw, with the exception of the 3 mm Apex pins, the two-pin systems were associated with less movement of the marker and could be inserted less invasively. With the knee flexed to 90° and the dislocated hip rotated externally until the lower leg was parallel to the table (figure-four position), all the anchoring devices showed substantial deflection of 1.5° to 2.5°. The most secure area for anchoring markers was the lateral aspect of the femur.