We wished to compare the clinical outcome, as assessed by questionnaires
and the rate of complications, in total knee arthroplasty (TKA)
undertaken with patient-matched positioning guides (PMPGs) or conventional
instruments. A total of 180 patients (74 men, 106 women; mean age 67 years)
were included in a multicentre, adequately powered, double-blind,
randomised controlled trial. The mean follow-up was 44 months (24
to 57).Aims
Patients and Methods
This is the first report of a new technique for unicompartmental to total knee arthroplasty revision surgery in which patient specific guides are formed based on preoperative CT imaging. This technique can help to make revision surgery less technically demanding. Unicompartmental to total knee arthroplasty revision surgery can be a technically demanding procedure. Joint line restoration, rotation and augmentations can cause difficulties. This study describes a new technique in which single way fitting guides serve to position knee system cutting blocks.Summary Statement
Introduction
This paper is the first to compare the results of unicompartmental to total knee arthroplasty revision surgery between cases with explained pain and cases with unexplained pain. Revision surgery for unexplained pain usually results in a less favourable outcome. Although it is suggested in literature that results of UKA to TKA revision surgery improve when the mechanism of failure is understood, a comparative study regarding this topic is lacking.Summary Statement
Introduction
Alignment results did not differ between PSG and conventional instrumentation. A small reduction in operation time and blood loss was found with the PSG system, but is unlikely of clinical significance. Length of hospital stay was identical for both groups. Several techniques for aligning a TKA exist nowadays. Patient-specific guiding (PSG) has relatively recently been introduced to try to resolve the shortcomings of existing techniques while optimising the operative procedure. Still few reports have been published on the clinical outcome and on the peroperative results of this new technique. This prospective, double-blind, randomised controlled trial was designed to address the following research questions: 1. Is there a significant difference in outliers in alignment in the frontal and sagittal plane between PSG TKA and conventional TKA. 2. Is there a significant difference in operation time, blood loss and length of hospital stay between the 2 techniques.Summary
Introduction
Patient-specific guiding (PSG) is a relatively new technique for aligning a total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Limited data exist on the precise accuracy of the technique. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether there was significant difference between the alignment of the individual femoral and tibial components (in all three anatomical planes) as calculated pre-operatively and the actually achieved alignment Twenty-six patients were included. Software permitted matching of the pre-operative MRI-scan (and therefore calculated prosthesis position) to a pre-operative full-leg CT-scan. After surgery a post-operative full-leg CT-scan could be superimposed onto the pre-operative CT-scan to accurately determine deviations from planning (see figure 1 and 2). This 3D-technique has an accuracy of 0.7–1.0 degrees.Background:
Methods:
Although it has been suggested that the outcome
after revision of a unicondylar knee replacement (UKR) to total knee
replacement (TKR) is better when the mechanism of failure is understood,
a comparative study on this subject has not been undertaken. A total of 30 patients (30 knees) who underwent revision of their
unsatisfactory UKR to TKR were included in the study: 15 patients
with unexplained pain comprised group A and 15 patients with a defined
cause for pain formed group B. The Oxford knee score (OKS), visual
analogue scale for pain (VAS) and patient satisfaction were assessed before
revision and at one year after revision, and compared between the
groups. The mean OKS improved from 19 (10 to 30) to 25 (11 to 41) in
group A and from 23 (11 to 45) to 38 (20 to 48) in group B. The
mean VAS improved from 7.7 (5 to 10) to 5.4 (1 to 8) in group A
and from 7.4 (2 to 9) to 1.7 (0 to 8) in group B. There was a statistically
significant difference between the mean improvements in each group
for both OKS (p = 0.022) and VAS (p = 0.002). Subgroup analysis
in group A, performed in order to define a patient factor that predicts
outcome of revision surgery in patients with unexplained pain, showed
no pre-operative differences between both subgroups. These results may be used to inform patients about what to expect
from revision surgery, highlighting that revision of UKR to TKR
for unexplained pain generally results in a less favourable outcome
than revision for a known cause of pain. Cite this article:
