We used three-dimensional movement analysis by computer modelling of knee flexion from 0° to 50° in 14 knees in 12 patients with recurrent patellar dislocation and in 15 knees in ten normal control subjects to compare the in vivo three-dimensional movement of the patella. Flexion, tilt and spin of the patella were described in terms of rotation angles from 0°. The location of the patella and the tibial tubercle were evaluated using parameters expressed as percentage patellar shift and percentage tubercle shift. Patellar inclination to the femur was also measured and patellofemoral contact was qualitatively and quantitatively analysed. The patients had greater values of spin from 20° to 50°, while there were no statistically significant differences in flexion and tilt. The patients also had greater percentage patellar shift from 0° to 50°, percentage tubercle shift at 0° and 10° and patellar inclination from 0° to 50° with a smaller oval-shaped contact area from 20° to 50° moving downwards on the lateral facet. Patellar movement analysis using a three-dimensional computer model is useful to clearly demonstrate differences between patients with recurrent dislocation of the patella and normal control subjects

Patient specific instrumentation (PSI) uses advanced imaging of the knee (CT or MRI) to generate individualised cutting blocks aimed to make the procedure of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) more accurate and efficient. However, in this era of healthcare cost consciousness, the value of new technologies needs to be critically evaluated. There have been several comparative studies looking at PSI versus standard instrumentation. Most compare PSI with conventional instrumentation in terms of alignment in the coronal plane, operative time and surgical efficiency, cost effectiveness and short-term outcomes. Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have also been published. PSI has not been shown to be superior compared with conventional instrumentation in its ability to restore traditional mechanical alignment in primary TKA. Most studies show comparative efficacy and no decrease in the number of outliers in either group. In terms of operative time and efficiency, PSI tended towards decreasing operative time, saving a mean of five minutes per patient (0 to 20). Furthermore, while some cost savings could be realised with less operative time and reduced instrumentation per patient, these savings were overcome by the cost of the CT/MRI and the cutting blocks. Finally, there was no evidence that PSI positively affected clinical outcomes at two days, two months, or two years. Consequently, current evidence does not support routine use of PSI in routine primary TKA.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):78–80.

We investigated the characteristics of patients who achieved Japanese-style deep flexion (seiza-sitting) after total knee replacement (TKR) and measured three-dimensional positioning and the contact positions of the femoral and tibial components. Seiza-sitting was achieved after surgery by 23 patients (29 knees) of a series of 463 TKRs in 341 patients. Pre-operatively most of these patients were capable of seiza-sitting, had a lower body mass index and a favourable attitude towards the Japanese lifestyle (27 of 29 knees). According to two-/three-dimensional image registration analysis in the seiza-sitting position, flexion, varus and internal rotation angles of the tibial component relative to the femoral component had means of 148° (sd 8.0), 1.9° (sd 3.2) and 13.4° (sd 5.9), respectively. Femoral surface contact positions tended to be close to the posterior edge of the tibial polyethylene insert, particularly in the lateral compartment, but only 8.3% (two of 24) of knees showed femoral subluxation over the posterior edge. The mean contact positions of the femoral cam on the tibial post were located 7.8 mm (sd 1.5) proximal to the lowest point of the polyethylene surface and 5.5 mm (sd 0.9) medial to the centre of the post, indicating that the post-cam contact position translated medially during seiza-sitting, but not proximally. Collectively, the seiza-sitting position seems safe against component dislocation, but the risks of posterior edge loading and breakage of the tibial polyethylene post remain.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:782–7.