Dynamic sensor-balanced knee arthroplasty: can the sensor “train” the surgeon?

Colin Y.L. Woon, Kaitlin M. Carroll, Leonard Lyman Stephen, David J. Mayman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Dynamic tibial tray sensors are playing an increasing role in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) coronal balancing. Sensor balance is proposed to lead to improved patient outcomes compared with sensor-unbalanced TKA, and traditional manual-balanced TKA. However, the “learning curve” of this technology is not known, and also whether sensor use can improve manual TKA balance skills once the sensor is taken away, effectively “training” the surgeon. Methods: We conducted a single-surgeon prospective study on 104 consecutive TKAs. In Nonblinded Phase I (n = 49), sensor-directed releases were performed during trialing and final intercompartmental load was recorded. In Blinded Phase II (n = 55), manual-balanced TKA was performed and final sensor readings were recorded by a blinded observer after cementation. We used cumulative summation analysis and sequential probability ratio testing to analyze the surgeon learning curve in both phases. Results: In Nonblinded Phase I, sensor balance proficiency was attained most easily at 10°, followed by 90°, and most difficult to attain at 45° of flexion. In Blinded Phase II, manual balance was lost most quickly at 45°, followed by 90°, and preserved for longest at 10° of flexion. The number of cases in the steady state periods (early phase periods where there is a mix of sensor balance and sensor imbalance) for both phases is similar. Conclusions: A surgeon who consistently uses the dynamic sensor demonstrates a learning curve with its use, and an “attrition” curve once it is removed. Consistent sensor balance is more predictable with constant sensor use.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)202-210
Number of pages9
JournalArthroplasty Today
Volume5
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 1 2019

Fingerprint

Knee Replacement Arthroplasties
Learning Curve
Cementation
Reading
Surgeons
Prospective Studies
Technology

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Dynamic sensor-balanced knee arthroplasty : can the sensor “train” the surgeon? / Woon, Colin Y.L.; Carroll, Kaitlin M.; Lyman Stephen, Leonard; Mayman, David J.

In: Arthroplasty Today, Vol. 5, No. 2, 01.06.2019, p. 202-210.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Woon, Colin Y.L. ; Carroll, Kaitlin M. ; Lyman Stephen, Leonard ; Mayman, David J. / Dynamic sensor-balanced knee arthroplasty : can the sensor “train” the surgeon?. In: Arthroplasty Today. 2019 ; Vol. 5, No. 2. pp. 202-210.
@article{3d96dedad0e94998971802909414b916,
title = "Dynamic sensor-balanced knee arthroplasty: can the sensor “train” the surgeon?",
abstract = "Background: Dynamic tibial tray sensors are playing an increasing role in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) coronal balancing. Sensor balance is proposed to lead to improved patient outcomes compared with sensor-unbalanced TKA, and traditional manual-balanced TKA. However, the “learning curve” of this technology is not known, and also whether sensor use can improve manual TKA balance skills once the sensor is taken away, effectively “training” the surgeon. Methods: We conducted a single-surgeon prospective study on 104 consecutive TKAs. In Nonblinded Phase I (n = 49), sensor-directed releases were performed during trialing and final intercompartmental load was recorded. In Blinded Phase II (n = 55), manual-balanced TKA was performed and final sensor readings were recorded by a blinded observer after cementation. We used cumulative summation analysis and sequential probability ratio testing to analyze the surgeon learning curve in both phases. Results: In Nonblinded Phase I, sensor balance proficiency was attained most easily at 10°, followed by 90°, and most difficult to attain at 45° of flexion. In Blinded Phase II, manual balance was lost most quickly at 45°, followed by 90°, and preserved for longest at 10° of flexion. The number of cases in the steady state periods (early phase periods where there is a mix of sensor balance and sensor imbalance) for both phases is similar. Conclusions: A surgeon who consistently uses the dynamic sensor demonstrates a learning curve with its use, and an “attrition” curve once it is removed. Consistent sensor balance is more predictable with constant sensor use.",
author = "Woon, {Colin Y.L.} and Carroll, {Kaitlin M.} and {Lyman Stephen}, Leonard and Mayman, {David J.}",
year = "2019",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.artd.2019.03.001",
language = "English",
volume = "5",
pages = "202--210",
journal = "Arthroplasty Today",
issn = "2352-3441",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Dynamic sensor-balanced knee arthroplasty

T2 - can the sensor “train” the surgeon?

AU - Woon, Colin Y.L.

AU - Carroll, Kaitlin M.

AU - Lyman Stephen, Leonard

AU - Mayman, David J.

PY - 2019/6/1

Y1 - 2019/6/1

N2 - Background: Dynamic tibial tray sensors are playing an increasing role in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) coronal balancing. Sensor balance is proposed to lead to improved patient outcomes compared with sensor-unbalanced TKA, and traditional manual-balanced TKA. However, the “learning curve” of this technology is not known, and also whether sensor use can improve manual TKA balance skills once the sensor is taken away, effectively “training” the surgeon. Methods: We conducted a single-surgeon prospective study on 104 consecutive TKAs. In Nonblinded Phase I (n = 49), sensor-directed releases were performed during trialing and final intercompartmental load was recorded. In Blinded Phase II (n = 55), manual-balanced TKA was performed and final sensor readings were recorded by a blinded observer after cementation. We used cumulative summation analysis and sequential probability ratio testing to analyze the surgeon learning curve in both phases. Results: In Nonblinded Phase I, sensor balance proficiency was attained most easily at 10°, followed by 90°, and most difficult to attain at 45° of flexion. In Blinded Phase II, manual balance was lost most quickly at 45°, followed by 90°, and preserved for longest at 10° of flexion. The number of cases in the steady state periods (early phase periods where there is a mix of sensor balance and sensor imbalance) for both phases is similar. Conclusions: A surgeon who consistently uses the dynamic sensor demonstrates a learning curve with its use, and an “attrition” curve once it is removed. Consistent sensor balance is more predictable with constant sensor use.

AB - Background: Dynamic tibial tray sensors are playing an increasing role in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) coronal balancing. Sensor balance is proposed to lead to improved patient outcomes compared with sensor-unbalanced TKA, and traditional manual-balanced TKA. However, the “learning curve” of this technology is not known, and also whether sensor use can improve manual TKA balance skills once the sensor is taken away, effectively “training” the surgeon. Methods: We conducted a single-surgeon prospective study on 104 consecutive TKAs. In Nonblinded Phase I (n = 49), sensor-directed releases were performed during trialing and final intercompartmental load was recorded. In Blinded Phase II (n = 55), manual-balanced TKA was performed and final sensor readings were recorded by a blinded observer after cementation. We used cumulative summation analysis and sequential probability ratio testing to analyze the surgeon learning curve in both phases. Results: In Nonblinded Phase I, sensor balance proficiency was attained most easily at 10°, followed by 90°, and most difficult to attain at 45° of flexion. In Blinded Phase II, manual balance was lost most quickly at 45°, followed by 90°, and preserved for longest at 10° of flexion. The number of cases in the steady state periods (early phase periods where there is a mix of sensor balance and sensor imbalance) for both phases is similar. Conclusions: A surgeon who consistently uses the dynamic sensor demonstrates a learning curve with its use, and an “attrition” curve once it is removed. Consistent sensor balance is more predictable with constant sensor use.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85064081124&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85064081124&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.artd.2019.03.001

DO - 10.1016/j.artd.2019.03.001

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85064081124

VL - 5

SP - 202

EP - 210

JO - Arthroplasty Today

JF - Arthroplasty Today

SN - 2352-3441

IS - 2

ER -