Three anatomic landmarks are typically used to estimate proper femoral component rotation in total knee arthroplasty: the transepicondylar axis (TEA), Whiteside's line, and the posterior condylar axis (PCA). Previous studies have shown that the presence of tibia vara may be accompanied by a hyperplastic posteromedial femoral condyle, which affects the relationship between the PCA and the TEA. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship of tibia vara with the PCA. Two hundred and forty-eight knees underwent planning for total knee arthroplasty with MRI. The MRI was used to characterize the relationship between the transepicondylar axis and the posterior condylar axis. Long-leg standing films (LLSF) were obtained to evaluate the medial proximal tibial angle. The MPTA is defined as the medial angle formed between a line along the anatomic axis of the tibia and a line along the tibial plateau.Introduction
Methods
Current techniques in total knee arthroplasty aim to restore the coronal mechanical axis to neutral. Preoperative planning has historically been based on long-leg standing films (LLSF) which allow surgeons to plan bony resection and soft tissue releases. However, LSSF can be prone to error if malrotated. Recently, patient-specific guides (PSG) utilizing supine magnetic resonance imaging (sMRI) have become an accepted technique for preoperative planning. In this study we sought to compare the degree of coronal deformity using LLSF and sMRI. Two hundred thirty knees underwent planning for total knee arthroplasty with sMRI and LLSF. Coronal plane deformity was determined based on the femoral-tibial angle (FTA) as defined by the angle formed between a line from the center of the femoral head to the intercondylar notch and a line from the middle of the tibial spines to the middle of the ankle joint. Mechanical axis values from the sMRI were compared with values obtained from LLSFIntroduction
Methods
Given the association of osteoarthritis with obesity, the typical patient requiring total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is often obese. Obesity has been shown to negatively influence outcomes following TKA, as it is associated with increased perioperative complications and poorer clinical and functional outcomes. Achieving proper limb alignment can be more difficult in the obese patient, potentially requiring a longer operation compared to non-obese patients. Patient specific instrumentation (PSI), a technique that utilizes MR- or CT-based customized guides for intraoperative cutting block placement, may offer a more efficient alternative to manual instruments for the obese patient. We hypothesize that the additional information provided by a preoperative MRI or CT may allow surgeons to achieve better alignment in less time compared to manual instrumentation. The purpose of this study was to assess whether PSI offers an improved operation length or limb alignment compared to manual instruments for nonmorbidly and morbidly obese patients. In this retrospective cohort study, we evaluated 77 PSI TKA and 25 manual TKA performed in obese patients (BMI≥30) between February 2013 and May 2015. During this period, all patients underwent PSI TKA unless unable to undergo MR scanning. All cases were performed by a single experienced surgeon and utilized a single implant system (Zimmer Persona™). PSI cases were performed using the MR-based Zimmer Patient Specific Instrumentation system. Tourniquet times were recorded to determine length of operation. Long-standing radiographs were obtained preoperatively and 4-weeks postoperatively to evaluate limb alignment. Cases were subdivided by nonmorbid obesity (30≤BMI<40) and morbid obesity (BMI≥40) to assess the effect of increasing obesity on outcomes.Introduction
Methods
The goal of tibial tray placement in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is to maximize tibial surface coverage while maintaining proper rotation. Maximizing tibial surface coverage without component overhang reduces the risk of tibial subsidence. Proper tibial rotation avoids excess risk of patellar maltracking, knee instability, inappropriate tibial loading, and ligament imbalance. Different tibial tray designs offer varying potential in optimizing the relationship between tibial surface coverage and rotation. Patient specific instrumentation (PSI) generates customized guides from an MRI- or CT-based preoperative plan for use in TKA. The purpose of the present study was to utilize MRI information, obtained as part of the PSI planning process, to determine, for anatomic, symmetric, and asymmetric tibial tray designs, (1) which tibial tray design achieves maximum coverage, (2) the impact of maximizing coverage on rotation, and (3) the impact of establishing neutral rotation on coverage. In this prospective comparative study, MR images for 100 consecutive patients were uploaded into Materialise™ PSI software that was used to evaluate characteristics of tibial component placement. Tibial component rotation and surface coverage was analyzed using the preoperative planning software. Anatomic (Persona™), symmetric (NexGen™), and asymmetric (Natural-Knee II™) designs from a single manufacturer (Zimmer™) were evaluated to assess the relationship of tibial coverage and tibial rotation. Tibial surface coverage, defined as the proportion of tibial surface area covered by a given implant, was measured using Adobe Photoshop™ software (Figure 1). Rotation was calculated with respect to the tibial AP axis, which was defined as the line connecting the medial third of the tibial tuberosity and the PCL insertion.Introduction
Methods
Patient specific instrumentation (PSI) generates customized guides from an MRI- or CT-based preoperative plan for use in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). PSI software executes the preoperative planning process. Several manufacturers have developed proprietary PSI software for preoperative planning. It is possible that each proprietary software has a unique preoperative planning process, which may lead to variation in preoperative plans among manufactures and thus variation in the overall PSI technology. The purpose of this study was to determine whether different PSI software generate similar preoperative plans when applied to a single implant system and given identical MR images. In this prospective comparative study, we evaluated PSI preoperative plans generated by Materialise software and Zimmer Patient Specific Instruments software for 37 consecutive knees. All plans utilized the Zimmer Persona™ CR implant system and were approved by a single experienced surgeon blinded to the other software-generated preoperative plan. For each knee, the MRI reconstructions for both software programs were evaluated to qualitatively determine differences in bony landmark identification. The software-generated preoperative plans were assessed to determine differences in preoperative alignment, component sizes, and resection depth. PSI planned bone resection was compared to actual bone resection to assess the accuracy of intraoperative execution.Introduction
Methods
The goal of tibial tray placement in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is to maximise tibial surface coverage while maintaining proper rotation. Maximising tibial surface coverage without component overhang reduces the risk of tibial subsidence. Proper tibial rotation avoids excess risk of patellar maltracking, knee instability, inappropriate tibial loading, and ligament imbalance. Different tibial tray designs offer varying potential in optimising the relationship between tibial surface coverage and rotation. Patient specific instrumentation (PSI) generates customised guides from an MRI- or CT-based preoperative plan for use in TKA. The purpose of the present study was to utilise MRI information, obtained as part of the PSI planning process, to determine, for anatomic, symmetric, and asymmetric tibial tray designs, (1) which tibial tray design achieves maximum coverage, (2) the impact of maximising coverage on rotation, and (3) the impact of establishing neutral rotation on coverage. MR images for 100 consecutive patients were uploaded into Materialise™ PSI software that was used to evaluate characteristics of tibial component placement. Tibial component rotation and surface coverage was analysed using the preoperative planning software. Anatomic (Persona™), symmetric (NexGen™), and asymmetric (Natural-Knee II™) designs from a single manufacturer (Zimmer™) were evaluated to assess the relationship of tibial coverage and tibial rotation. Tibial surface coverage, defined as the proportion of tibial surface area covered by a given implant, was measured using Adobe Photoshop™ software. Rotation was calculated with respect to the tibial AP axis, which was defined as the line connecting the medial third of the tibial tuberosity and the PCL insertion. When tibial surface coverage was maximised, the anatomic tray compared to the symmetric/asymmetric trays showed significantly higher surface coverage (82.1% vs 80.4/80.1%; p<0.01), significantly less deviation from the AP axis (0.3° vs 3.0/2.4°; p<0.01), and a significantly higher proportion of cases within 5° of the AP axis (97% vs 73/77%). When constraining rotation to the AP axis, the anatomic tray showed significantly higher surface coverage compared to the symmetric/asymmetric trays (80.8% vs 76.3/75.8%; p<0.01). No significant differences were found between symmetric and asymmetric trays. We found that the anatomic tibial tray resulted in significantly higher tibial coverage with significantly less deviation from the AP axis compared to the symmetric and asymmetric trays. When rotation was constrained to the AP axis, the anatomic tray resulted in significantly higher tibial coverage than the symmetric and asymmetric trays. Tibial rotation is recognised as an important factor in the success of a total knee replacement. Maximising coverage with the least compromise in rotation is the goal for tibial tray design. In this study, the anatomic tibia seemed to optimise the relationship between tibial surface coverage and rotation. This study additionally illustrates the way by which advanced preoperative planning tools (ie. MRI/computer reconstructions) allow us to obtain valuable information with regard to implant design.
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:
Cite this article:
