Accurate identification of the ankle joint centre is critical for estimating tibial coronal alignment in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of the current study was to leverage artificial intelligence (AI) to determine the accuracy and effect of using different radiological anatomical landmarks to quantify mechanical alignment in relation to a traditionally defined radiological ankle centre. Patients with full-limb radiographs from the Osteoarthritis Initiative were included. A sub-cohort of 250 radiographs were annotated for landmarks relevant to knee alignment and used to train a deep learning (U-Net) workflow for angle calculation on the entire database. The radiological ankle centre was defined as the midpoint of the superior talus edge/tibial plafond. Knee alignment (hip-knee-ankle angle) was compared against 1) midpoint of the most prominent malleoli points, 2) midpoint of the soft-tissue overlying malleoli, and 3) midpoint of the soft-tissue sulcus above the malleoli.Aims
Methods
Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RA-TKA) is theoretically more accurate for component positioning than TKA performed with mechanical instruments (M-TKA). Furthermore, the ability to incorporate soft-tissue laxity data into the plan prior to bone resection should reduce variability between the planned polyethylene thickness and the final implanted polyethylene. The purpose of this study was to compare accuracy to plan for component positioning and precision, as demonstrated by deviation from plan for polyethylene insert thickness in measured-resection RA-TKA versus M-TKA. A total of 220 consecutive primary TKAs between May 2016 and November 2018, performed by a single surgeon, were reviewed. Planned coronal plane component alignment and overall limb alignment were all 0° to the mechanical axis; tibial posterior slope was 2°; and polyethylene thickness was 9 mm. For RA-TKA, individual component position was adjusted to assist gap-balancing but planned coronal plane alignment for the femoral and tibial components and overall limb alignment remained 0 ± 3°; planned tibial posterior slope was 1.5°. Mean deviations from plan for each parameter were compared between groups for positioning and size and outliers were assessed.Aims
Methods
