One of the main goals of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is to restore an adequate range of motion. The posterior femoral offset (PFO) may have a significant influence on the final flexion angle after TKA. The purpose of the present study was to compare the conventional, radiologic measurement of the PFO before and after TKA to the intra-operative, navigated measurement of the antero-posterior femoral dimension before and after TKA implantation. 100 consecutive cases referred for end-stage knee osteo-arthritis have been included. Inclusion criteria were the availability of pre-TKA and post-TKA lateral X-rays and a navigated TKA implantation. There was no exclusion criterion.INTRODUCTION
MATERIAL
Measurement of range of motion is a critical item of any knee scoring system. Conventional measurements used in the clinical settings are not as precise as required. Smartphone technology using either inclinometer application or photographic technology may be more precise with virtually no additional cost when compared to more sophisticated techniques such as gait analysis or image analysis. No comparative analysis between these two techniques has been previously performed. The goal of the study was to compare these two technologies to the navigated measurement considered as the gold standard. Ten patients were consecutively included. Inclusion criterion was implantation of a TKA with a navigation system.INTRODUCTION
MATERIAL
Peri-prosthetic fungal infection is generally considered more difficult to cure than a bacterial infection. Two-stage exchange is considered the gold standard of surgical treatment. A recent study, however, reported a favorable outcome after one stage exchange in selected cases where the fungus was identified prior to surgery. The routine one stage exchange policy for bacterial peri-prosthetic infection involves the risk of identifying a fungal infection mimicking bacterial infection solely on intraoperative samples, i.e. after reimplantation, realizing actually a one stage exchange for fungal infection without pre-operative identification of the responsible fungus, which is considered to have a poor prognosis. We report two such cases of prosthetic hip and knee fungal infection. Despite this negative characteristic, no recurrence of the fungal infection was observed. CASE N°1: A 78 year old patient was referred for loosening of a chronically infected total hip arthroplasty (Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus dysgalactiae). One stage exchange was performed. Intraoperative bacterial cultures remained sterile. Two fungal cultures were positive for Candida albicans. Antifungal treatment was initiated for three months. No infection recurrence was observed at three year follow up. CASE N° 2: A 53-year-old patient was referred for loosening of a chronically infected total knee prosthesis (Staphylococcus aureus methicillin susceptible, Klebsiella pneumoniae and Staphylococcus epidermidis). One stage exchange was performed. Intraoperative bacterial cultures remained sterile. Five fungal cultures were positive for Candida albicans. Antifungal treatment was initiated for three months. No infection recurrence was observed at two-year follow-up. This experience suggests that eradication of fungal infection of a total hip or knee arthroplasty may be possible after one stage exchange even in cases where the diagnosis of fungal infection was not known before surgery, when the fungus was not identified and its antifungal susceptibility has not been evaluated before surgery. It is however not possible to propose this strategy as a routine procedure.INTRODUCTION
DISCUSSION
An appropriate positioning of a total knee replacement (TKR) is a prerequisite for a good functional outcome and a prolonged survival. Navigation systems may facilitate this proper positioning. Patient specific templates have been developed to achieve at least the same accuracy than conventional instruments at a lower cost. We hypothesised that there was no learning curve at our academic department when using patient specific templates for TKR instead of the routinely used navigation system. The first 20 patients operated on for TKR at our academic department using a patient specific template entered the study. All patients had a pre-operative CT-scan planning with a dedicated software. The patient specific templates were positioned on the bone according to the best fit technique. The position of the templates was controlled at each step of the procedure by the navigation system, and eventually corrected to achieve the expected goal. The discrepancy between the initial and the final positioning was recorded. The paired difference between each set of measurement was analysed with appropriate statistical tests at a 0.05 level of significance.Introduction
Material
How to position a unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) remains a matter of debate. We suggest an original technique based on the intra-operative anatomic and dynamic analysis of the operated knee by a navigation system, with a patient-specific reconstruction by the UKR. The goal of the current study was to assess the feasibility of the new technique and its potential pitfalls. 100 patients were consecutively operated on by implantation of a UKR with help of a well validated, non-image based navigation system, by one single surgeon. There were 41 men and 59 women, with a mean age of 68 years (range, 51 to 82 years). After data registration, the navigation system provided the dynamic measurement of the coronal tibio-femoral mechanical angle in full extension. The reducibility of the deformation was assessed by a manually applied torque in the valgus direction. The patient-specific analysis was based on the following hypotheses: 1) The normal medial laxity in full extension is 2° (after previous studies), 2) there was no abnormal medial laxity (which may be routinely accepted for varus knees) and 3) the total reducibility is the sum of the patient's own medial laxity and of the bone and cartilage loss. We assumed that the optimal correction may be calculated by the angle of maximal reducibility, less 2° to respect the normal medial laxity. The bone resections were performed accordingly to this calculated goal. No ligamentous balance or retension was performed. The fine tuning of the remaining laxity was performed by adapting the height of polyethylene component with a 1 mm step. The final measurements (coronal tibio-femoral angle in full extension and medial laxity in full extension) were performed with the navigation system after the final components fixation. The implantation had to fulfill these two parameters: optimal correction as defined previously, and a 2 ± 1° of medial laxity.Objectives
Methods
An optimal reconstruction of the joint anatomy and physiology during revision total knee replacement (RTKR) is technically demanding. The standard navigation systems were developed for primary procedures, and their adaptation to RTKR is difficult. We present a new navigation software dedicated to RTKR. The rationale of this new software was to allow a virtual planning of the joint reconstruction just after removal of the primary prosthesis. The new software was developed on the basis of a non-image based navigation system which has been extensively validated for implantation of a primary TKR. Following changes have been implemented: 1) to define and control the vertical level of the joint space on both tibia and femoral side; 2) to measure the tibio-femoral gaps independently in flexion et en extension on both medial and lateral tibio-femoral joints; 3) to virtually plan and control the vertical level and the orientation of the tibia component; 4) to virtually plan and control the sizing and the 3D positioning of the femoral component (figure 1); 5) to virtually plan and control the potential bone resection; 6) to virtually plan and control the potential bone defects and their reconstruction (bone graft or augments) (figure 2); 7) to virtually plan and control the size, the length and the orientation of the stems extensions independently on the femoral and on the tibia side (figure 3). The validity of the concept has been tested by 20 patients operated on for RTKR for any reason, with a routine reconstruction with a cemented, unconstrained revision implant. The accuracy of the experimental software was assessed 1) during the procedure after implantation of the RTKR by measuring the medial and lateral laxity in full extension and 90° of knee flexion with the navigation system, and 2) on post-operative radiographs.Objectives
Methods
Quantification of the anterior and rotational laxity of the knee allows recognising an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) insufficiency and assessing the severity of the lesion. The new GNRB system has demonstrated an improved accuracy and precision in the assessment of the anterior laxity. However, it is not known if this pre-operative measurement is a good predictor of the intra-operative measurement of the knee laxity, especially in the rotational plane. We tested the following hypotheses: 1) the pre-operative anterior knee laxity measured with the GNRB system is predictive for the intra-operative measurement of the anterior knee laxity by a navigation system, and 2) the pre-operative anterior knee laxity measured with the GNRB system is predictive for the intra-operative measurement of the rotational knee laxity by a navigation system, 40 patients operated on for ACL reconstruction were included. The anterior knee translation was assessed before the operation with the GNRB system with a force of 250 N at 25° of knee flexion. The anterior knee translation and the internal-external range of rotation was measured intra-operatively before and after ACL reconstruction with the navigation system. The correlation between 1) the measurements of the anterior laxity by the GNRB system and the navigation system, and 2) the measurements of the anterior translation by the GNRB system and the rotational knee motion measured by the navigation system, were assessed. There was a significant difference between the measurements of the mean knee anterior laxity by the GNRB system (9.1 ± 2.9 mm) and by the navigation system (11.3 ± 4.0 mm) (p<0.001). There was no significant correlation between the two techniques (R2 = 0.01). However, a satisfactory agreement between the two techniques was observed (R2 = 0.03), with a systematic bias of −3.3 mm for GNRB measurements in comparison to navigated measurements. There was neither significant correlation nor satisfactory agreement between the two techniques when predicting the rotational motion of the knee. When used prior to ACL reconstruction, the GNRB system underestimates the anterior laxity of the knee that will be measured during the reconstruction by a navigation system, and does not predict the amount of rotational laxity. It is difficult to predict accurately the anterior and rotational knee laxity by pre-operative measurements.
To restore a physiologic kinematic is one of the goals of total knee replacement (TKR). This study compared the intra-operative registration of the knee kinematics during standard, navigated TKR performed either with a well validated floating platform design with posterior cruciate (PCL) preservation, or with a newly designed TKR with a rotating platform and PCL substitution. It was hypothesised that this new design will significantly alter the kinematic recorded after TKR implantation in comparison to the conventional design. A standard navigation software has been modified to allow the intra-operative registration of the knee kinematic during a flexion-extension movement before and after implantation. Kinematic registration was performed twice: 1) before any bone resection or ligamentous balancing; 2) after fixation of the final implants. Post-operative kinematic was classified as following: 1) Occurrence of a normal femoral roll-back during knee flexion, no roll-back or paradoxical femoral roll-forward. 2) Occurrence of a normal tibial internal rotation during knee flexion, no tibial rotation or paradoxical tibial external rotation. 20 patients were operated on with either the PCL preserving or sacrificing designs. The kinematic behaviour was compared on a patient specific basis before and after the TKR. About femoral roll-back, 54% had a normal femoral roll-back during knee flexion after total knee replacement, 13% had no significant roll-back and 33% had a paradoxical femoral roll-forward. About tibia rotation, 65% had a normal tibia internal rotation during knee flexion, 16% had no significant tibia rotation and 19 had a paradoxical tibia external rotation. There was no difference of repartition between the two designs. The new software allows actually validating new designs of a TKR in terms of intra-operative kinematic behaviour.
Modern total knee replacements aim to reconstruct a physiological kinematic behaviour, and specifically femoral roll-back and automatic tibial rotation. A specific software derived from a clinically used navigation system was developed to allow in vivo registration of the knee kinematics before and after total knee replacement. The study was designed to test for the feasibility of the intra-operative registration of the knee kinematics during standard, navigated total knee replacement. The software measures the respective movement of the femur and the tibia, and specially antero-posterior translation and tibial rotation during passive knee flexion. Kinematic registration was performed twice during an usual procedure of navigated total knee replacement: 1) Before any bone resection or ligamentous balancing; 2) After fixation of the final implants. 200 cases of total knee replacement have been analysed. Post-operative kinematic was classified as following: 1) Occurrence of a normal femoral roll-back during knee flexion, no roll-back or paradoxical femoral roll-forward. 2) Occurrence of a normal tibial internal rotation during knee flexion, no tibial rotation or paradoxical tibial external rotation. All patients were followed up for a minimal period of 12 months, and reevaluated at the latest follow-up visit for clinical and functional results with completion of the Knee Society Scores. Recording the kinematic was possible in all cases. The results of both pre-operative and post-operative registrations were analysed on a qualitative manner. The results were close to those already published in both experimental and clinical studies. About femoral roll-back, 54% had a normal femoral roll-back during knee flexion after total knee replacement, 13% had no significant roll-back and 33% had a paradoxical femoral roll-forward. About tibia rotation, 65% had a normal tibia internal rotation during knee flexion, 16% had no significant tibia rotation and 19 had a paradoxical tibia external rotation. The mean Knee Score was 92/100 ± 10 points. There was a significant correlation between the post-operative kinematic behaviour and the Function Score, with better score for the patients having a physiological femoral roll-back and a physiological tibial internal rotation during knee flexion (p<0.01). Intra-operative analysis of the kinematic of the knee during total knee replacement may offer the chance to modify the kinematic behaviour of the implant and to choose the best fitted constraint to the patient's native knee in order to impact positively the functional result.
Computer-aided systems have been developed recently in order to improve the precision of implantation of a total knee replacement (TKR). Several authors demonstrated that the accuracy of implantation of TKR was higher with the help of a navigation system in comparison to the conventional, manual technique. Theoretically, the clinical results and the survival rates should be improved. Our team was one of the first all over the world which decided to use routinely a navigation system for TKR. Prostheses designed with a mobile bearing polyethylene component allow an increased congruence between femoral and tibial gliding surface, and should decrease the risk of long-term polyethylene wear. We designed a prosthetic system with one of the highest congruence on the current market. These prostheses might be technically more demanding than more conventional designs, and involve specific complications like bearing luxation. Navigation systems might be helpful in this was as well. In the present study, we wanted to test clinically the theoretic advantages of these three specific points of our system (navigated implantation, mobile bearing and increased congruence) with a five-year clinical and radiological follow-up. 128 patients were operated on at our Department with this TKR system between 2000, and were contacted for a five-year clinical and radiological follow-up. The clinical and functional results were evaluated according to the Knee Society Scoring System (KSS). The subjective results were analyzed with the Oxford Knee Score. The accuracy of implantation was assessed on post-operative long leg antero-posterior and lateral X-rays. The survival rate after 5 years was calculated according to the Kaplan-Meier technique.INTRODUCTION
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Computer-aided systems have been developed recently in order to improve the precision of implantation of a total knee replacement (TKR). Several authors demonstrated that the accuracy of implantation of an unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) was also improved. Minimal invasive techniques have been developed to decrease the surgical trauma related to the prosthesis implantation. The benefits of minimal-incision surgery might include less surgical dissection, less blood loss and pain, an earlier return to function, a smaller scar, and subsequently lower costs. However, there might be a concern about the potential of minimal invasive techniques for a loss of accuracy. Navigation might help to compensate for these difficulties. Mobile bearing prostheses have been developed to decrease the risk of polyethylene wear. The benefits might be a better survival and less bone loss during revisions. However, these prosthesis are technically more demanding, and involve the specific risk of bearing luxation. Again, navigation might help to compensate for these difficulties. We wanted to combine the theoretical advantages of the three different techniques by developing a navigated, minimal invasive, mobile bearing unicompartmental knee prosthesis. 160 patients have been operated on at our institution with this system. The 81 patients with more than 2 year follow-up have been re-examined. Complications have been recorded. The clinical results have been analyzed according to the Knee Society Scoring System. The subjective results have been analyzed with the Oxford Knee Questionnaire. The accuracy of implantation has been analyzed on post-operative antero-posterior and lateral long leg X-rays. The 2-year survival rate has been calculated.INTRODUCTION
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Revision total knee replacement (TKR) is a challenging procedure, especially because most of the standard bony and ligamentous landmarks used during primary TKR are lost due to the index implantation. However, as for primary TKR, restoration of the joint line, adequate limb axis correction and ligamentous stability are considered critical for the short- and long- term outcome of revision TKR. Navigation system might address this issue. We are using an image-free system (ORTHOPILOT TM, AESCULAP, FRG) for routine implantation of primary TKR. The standard software was used for revision TKR. Registration of anatomic and cinematic data was performed with the index implant left in place. The components were then removed. New bone cuts as necessary were performed under the control of the navigation system. The system did not allow navigation for intra-medullary stem extensions and any bone filling which may have been required. This technique was used for 37 patients. The accuracy of implantation was assessed by measuring following angles on the post-operative long-leg radiographs: mechanical femoro-tibial angle, coronal orientation of the femoral component in comparison to the mechanical femoral axis, coronal orientation of the tibial component in comparison to the mechanical tibial axis, sagittal orientation of the tibial component in comparison to the proximal posterior tibial cortex. Individual analysis was performed as follows: one point was given for each fulfilled item, giving a maximal accuracy note of 4 points. Prosthesis implantation was considered as satisfactory when the accuracy note was 4 (all fulfilled items). The rate of globally satisfactory implanted prostheses and the rate of prostheses implanted within the desired range for each criterion were recorded. The results of the 37 navigated revision TKR were compared to 26 cases of revision TKR performed with conventional intramedullary guiding systems.INTRODUCTION
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Revision total knee replacement (TKR) is a challenging procedure, especially because most of the standard bony and ligamentous landmarks used during primary TKR are lost due to the index implantation. However, as for primary TKR, restoration of the joint line, adequate limb axis correction and ligamentous stability are considered critical for the short- and long- term outcome of revision TKR. There is no available data about the range of tolerable leg alignment after revision TKR. However, it is logical to assume that the same range than after primary TKR might be accepted, that is ± 3° off the neutral alignment. One might also assume that the conventional instruments, which rely on visual or anatomical alignments or intra- or extra-medullary rods, are associated with significant higher variation of the leg axis correction, especially in cases with significant bone loss which prevents to control the exact location of the usual, relevant landmarks. Navigation system might address this issue. We used an image-free system (ORTHOPILOT TM, AESCULAP, FRG) for routine implantation of primary TKR. The standard software was used for revision TKR. Registration of anatomic and cinematic data was performed with the index implant left in place. The components were then removed. New bone cuts as necessary were performed under the control of the navigation system. The size of the implants and their thickness was chosen after simulation of the residual laxities, and ligament balance was adapted to the simulation results. The system did not allow navigation for intra-medullary stem extensions and any bone filling which may have been required. This technique was used for 54 patients. The accuracy of implantation was assessed by measuring following angles on the post-operative long-leg radiographs: mechanical femoro-tibial angle (normal = 0°, varus deformation was described with a positive angle); coronal orientation of the femoral component in comparison to the mechanical femoral axis (normal = 90°, varus deformation was described with an angle <
90°); coronal orientation of the tibial component in comparison to the mechanical tibial axis (normal = 90°, varus deformation was described with an angle <
90°); sagittal orientation of the tibial component in comparison to the proximal posterior tibial cortex (normal = 90°, flexion deformation was described with angle <
90°). Individual analysis was performed as follows: one point was given for each fulfilled item, giving a maximal accuracy note of 4 points. Prosthesis implantation was considered as satisfactory when the accuracy note was 4 (all fulfilled items). The rate of globally satisfactory implanted prostheses and the rate of prostheses implanted within the desired range for each criterion were recorded. Limb alignment was restored in 88%. The coronal orientation of the femoral component was acceptable in 92% of the cases. The coronal orientation of the tibial component was acceptable in 89% of the cases. The sagittal orientation of the tibial component was acceptable in 87% of the cases. Overall, 78% of the implants were oriented satisfactorily for the four criteria. The navigation system enables reaching the implantation objectives for implant position and ligament balance in the large majority of cases, with a rate similar to that obtained for primary TKA. The navigation system is a useful aid for these often difficult operations, where the visual information is often misleading.
Navigation systems are able to measure very accurately the movement of bones, and consequently the knee laxity, which is a movement of the tibia under the femur. These systems might help measuring the knee laxity during the implantation of a total (TKR) or a unicompartmental (UKR) knee replacement. 20 patients operated on for TKR (13 cases) or UKR (7 cases) because of primary varus osteoarthritis have been analyzed. Pre-operative examination involved varus and valgus stress X-rays at 0 and 90° of knee flexion. The intra-operative medial and lateral laxity was measured with the navigation system at the beginning of the procedure and after prosthetic implantation. Varus and valgus stress X-rays were repeated after 6 weeks. X-ray and navigated measurements before and after knee replacement were compared with a paired Wilcoxon test at a 0.05 level of significance. The mean pre-operative medial laxity in extension was 2.3° (SD 2.3°). The mean pre-operative lateral laxity in extension was 5.6° (SD 5.1°). The mean pre-operative medial laxity in flexion was 2.2° (SD 1.9°). The mean pre-operative lateral laxity in flexion was 6.7° (SD 6.0°). The mean intra-operative medial laxity in extension at the beginning of the procedure was 3.6° (SD 1.7°). The mean intra-operative lateral laxity in extension at the beginning of the procedure was 3.0° (SD 1.3°). The mean intra-operative medial laxity in flexion at the beginning of the procedure was 1.9° (SD 2.6°). The mean intra-operative lateral laxity in flexion at the beginning of the procedure was 3.5° (SD 2.7°). The mean intra-operative medial laxity in extension after implantation was 2.1° (SD 0.9°). The mean intra-operative lateral laxity in extension after implantation was 1.9° (SD 1.1°). The mean intra-operative medial laxity in flexion after implantation was 1.9° (SD 2.5°). The mean intra-operative lateral laxity in flexion after implantation was 3.0° (SD 2.8°). The mean post-operative medial laxity in extension was 2.4° (SD 1.1°). The mean post-operative lateral laxity in extension was 2.0° (SD 1.7°). The mean post-operative medial laxity in flexion was 4.4° (SD 3.3°). The mean post-operative lateral laxity in flexion was 4.7° (SD 3.2°). There was a significant difference between navigated and radiographic measurements for the pre-operative medial laxity in extension (mean = 1.4° – p = 0.005), the pre-operative lateral laxity in extension (mean = 2.6° – p = 0.01), the pre-operative lateral laxity in flexion (mean = 3.3° – p = 0.005). There was no significant difference between navigated and radiographic measurements for the pre-operative medial laxity in flexion (mean = 0.3° – p = 0.63). There was a significant difference between navigated and radiographic measurements for the postoperative medial laxity in flexion (mean = 2.5° – p = 0.004). There was no significant difference between navigated and radiographic measurements for the postoperative medial laxity in extension (mean = 0.3° – p = 0.30), the post-operative lateral laxity in extension (mean = 0.2° – p = 0.76), the post-operative lateral laxity in flexion (mean = 1.7° – p = 0.06). These differences were less than 2 degrees in most of the cases, and then considered as clinically irrelevant. The navigation system used allowed measuring the medial and lateral laxity before and after TKR. This measurement was significantly different from the radiographic measurement by stress X-rays for pre-operative laxity, but not statistically different from the radiographic measurement by stress X-rays for post-operative laxity. The differences were mostly considered as clinically irrelevant. The navigated measurement of the knee laxity can be considered as accurate. The navigated measurement is valuable information for balancing the knee during TKR. The reproducibility of this balancing might be improved due to a more objective assessment.
Revision TKR is a challenging procedure, especially because most of the standard bony and ligamentous landmarks are lost due to the primary implantation. However, as for primary TKR, restoration of the joint line, adequate limb axis correction and ligamentous stability are considered critical for the short- and long-term outcome of revision TKR. There is no available data about the range of tolerable leg alignment after revision TKR. However, it is logical to assume that the same range than after primary TKR might be accepted, that is ± 3° off the neutral alignment. One might also assume that the conventional instruments, which rely on visual or anatomical alignments or intra- or extramedullary rods, are associated with significant higher variation of the leg axis correction. We used an image-free system (ORTHOPILOT TM, AESCULAP, FRG) for routine implantation of primary TKA. The standard software was used for revision TKA. Registration of anatomic and kinematic data was performed with the index implant left in place. The components were then removed. New bone cuts as necessary were performed under the control of the navigation system. The size of the implants and their thickness was chosen after simulation of the residual laxities, and ligament balance was adapted to the simulation results. The system did not allow navigation for centromedullary stem extension and any bone filling which may have been required. This technique was used for 54 patients. The accuracy of implantation was assessed by measuring the limb alignment and orientation of the implants on the post-operative radiographs. Limb alignment was restored in 88%. The coronal orientation of the femoral component was acceptable in 92% of the cases. The coronal orientation of the tibial component was acceptable in 89% of the cases. The sagittal orientation of the tibial component was acceptable in 87% of the cases. Overall, 78% of the implants were oriented satisfactorily for the five criteria. The navigation system enables reaching the implantation objectives for implant position and ligament balance in the large majority of cases, with a rate similar to that obtained for primary TKA. The navigation system is a useful aid for these often difficult operations, where the visual information is often misleading. The navigation system used enables facilitated revision TKA.
