Patients ≤ 55 years have a high primary TKA revision rate compared to patients >55 years. Guided motion knee devices are commonly used in younger patients yet outcomes remain unknown. In this sub-group analysis of a large multicenter study, 254 TKAs with a second-generation guided motion knee implant (Journey II Bi-Cruciate Stabilized Knee System, Smith & Nephew, Inc., Memphis) were performed between 2011–2017 in 202 patients ≤ 55 years at seven US and three European sites. Revision rates were compared with Australian Joint Registry (AOANJRR) 2017 data.Introduction
Materials and Methods
Outcomes for guided motion primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in obese patients are unknown. 1,684 consecutive patients underwent 2,059 primary TKAs with a second-generation guided motion implant (Journey II Bi-Cruciate Stabilized Knee System, Smith & Nephew, Inc., Memphis) between 2011–2017 at three European and seven US sites.Introduction/Aim
Materials and Methods
Mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty(TKA) relies on restoring the hip-knee-ankle angle of the limb to neutral or as close to a straight line as possible. This principle is based on studies that suggest limb and knee alignment is related long term survival and wear. For that cause, there has been recent attention concerning computer-assisted TKA and robot is also one of the most helpful instruments for restoring neutral alignment as known. But many reported data have shown that 20% to 25% of patients with mechanically aligned TKA are dissatisfied. Accordingly, kinematically aligned TKA was implemented as an alternative alignment strategy with the goal of reducing prevalence of unexplained pain, stiffness, and instability and improving the rate of recovery, kinematics, and contact forces. So, we want to report our extremely early experience of robot-assisted TKA planned by kinematic method. This study evaluated the very short term results (6 weeks follow up) after robot-assisted TKA aligned kinematically. 50 knees in 36 patients, who could be followed up more than 6 weeks after surgery from December 2014 to January 2015, were evaluated prospectively. The diagnosis was primary osteoarthritis in all cases. The operation was performed with ROBODOC (ISS Inc., CA, USA) along with the ORTHODOC (ISS Inc., CA, USA) planning computer. The cutting plan was made by single radius femoral component concept, each femoral condyles shape-matched method along the transverse axis using multi-channel CT and MRI to place the implant along the patient's premorbid joint line. Radiographic measurements were made from long bone scanograms. Clinical outcomes and motion were measured preoperatively and 6 weeks postoperatively.Introduction
Materials and Methods
The success of total knee arthroplasty depends on many factors, including the preoperative condition of the patient, the design and materials of the components and surgical techniques. It is important to position the femoral and tibial components accurately and to balance the soft tissues. Malpositioning of the component can lead to failures due to aseptic loosening, instability, polyethylene wear and dislocation of the patella. In order to improve post-operative alignment, computer-aid systems have been developed for total knee arthroplasty. Many clinical and experimental studies of these systems have shown that the accuracy of implanted components can be improved in spite of the increase in costs and operating time. This may not, however, improve the outcome in the short-term. Restoration of the normal mechanical axis of the knee and balancing of the surrounding soft tissues have been shown to have an important bearing on the final outcome of knee replacement operations. In severely deformed knees, whether varus or valgus, these goals may be difficult to achieve. We compared the radiologic results of the mechanical axis and implant position of Total Knee Arthroplasty using a robot-assisted method with conventional manually implanted method in severe varus deformed knee. A data set of 50 consecutive cases that were performed from April 2007 to December 2010 using the robot assisted TKA(Group A) were compared with a data set of 50 consecutive cases from the same period that were done using conventional manual TKA(Group B). All cases had a preoperative mechanical varus deformity >15° and one brand of implant was used on all cases. The diagnosis was primary osteoarthritis in all knees. The operations were performed by one-senior author with the same robot system, ROBODOC (ISS Inc., CA, USA) along with the ORTHODOC (ISS Inc., CA, USA) planning computer. (See Figure 1.) The radiological evaluations included mechanical axis, implant position (α,β,γ,δ angle) according to the system of American Knee Society.Introduction
Materials and Methods
Since Smith-Peterson's glass mold arthroplasty in 1939, hip resurfacing arthroplasty was developed and introduced to orthopaedic surgery field but it had many problem like early loosening. Recently it is being popular for some indication as development of new implant design and manufacturing. There are still many suggested advantages of hip resurfacing arthroplasty. These include bone conservation, improved function as a consequence of retention of the femoral head and neck and more precise biomechanical restoration, decreased morbidity at the time of revision arthroplasty, reduced dislocation rates, normal femoral loading and reduced stress-shielding, simpler management of a degenerated hip with a deformity in the proximal femoral metaphysic, an improved outcome in the event of infection, and a reduced prevalence of thromboembolic phenomena as a consequence of not using instruments in the femur. But, there are limited or inconsistent data to support some of these claims regarding the benefits of hip resurfacing including the potential for a more natural feel because of the minimal disturbance of the proximal part of the femur resulting in a better and faster functional outcome. We evaluate the short term results of hip resurfacing arthroplasty using custom patient-specific tooling for prosthesis placement for better standardization. 40 cases, 36 patients(male:20, female:16) those of who were candidates of a Hip Resurfacing procedure, participated in the study. Mean follow up period was 2.5 years (8 months ∼3 years). A CT scan was performed on each patient and a 3D model was generated using the computer tomography dataset. From this model a bone-surface skin was extracted and this data set was used to create a personalized jig. Detailed analysis of the native bone structure was then used to preoperatively plan the appropriate size and position of the implant. A mean 7 degree corrective valgus angle was prescribed on all cases. Postoperative radiological datasets were superimposed onto preoperative plan position and offsets were measured. Operative times were recorded per step during the procedure. Surgeon comfort and ease of use was also noted.Introduction
Materials and Methods
