TY - JOUR
T1 - Three-dimensional analysis of accuracy of patient-matched instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty
T2 - Evaluation of intraoperative techniques and postoperative alignment
AU - Kuwashima, Umito
AU - Mizu-uchi, Hideki
AU - Okazaki, Ken
AU - Hamai, Satoshi
AU - Akasaki, Yukio
AU - Murakami, Koji
AU - Nakashima, Yasuharu
N1 - Funding Information:
H.M has received a speaker honorarium from Zimmer Biomet and Smith & Nephew. K.O has received research grants from Pfizer Inc. and Cyfuse Inc., and has received a speaker honorarium from Zimmer Biomet, Smith & Nephew and Johnson & Johnson. The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. And there is no funding source of this research.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 The Japanese Orthopaedic Association
Copyright:
Copyright 2018 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2017/11
Y1 - 2017/11
N2 - Background It is questionable that the accuracies of patient-matched instrumentation (PMI) have been controversial, even though many surgeons follow manufacturers’ recommendations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of intraoperative procedures and the postoperative alignment of the femoral side using PMI with 3-dimensional (3D) analysis. Methods Eighteen knees that underwent total knee arthroplasty using MRI-based PMI were assessed. Intraoperative alignment and bone resection errors of the femoral side were evaluated with a CT-based navigation system. A conventional adjustable guide was used to compare cartilage data with that derived by PMI intraoperatively. Postoperative alignment was assessed using a 3D coordinate system with a computer-assisted design software. We also measured the postoperative alignments using conventional alignment guides with the 3D evaluation. Results Intraoperative coronal alignment with PMI was 90.9° ± 1.6°. Seventeen knees (94.4%) were within 3° of the optimal alignment. Intraoperative rotational alignment of the femoral guide position of PMI was 0.2° ± 1.6°compared with the adjustable guide, with 17 knees (94.4%) differing by 3° or less between the two methods. Maximum differences in coronal and rotation alignment before and after bone cutting were 2.0° and 2.8° respectively. Postoperative coronal and rotational alignments were 89.4° ± 1.8° and −1.1° ± 1.3° respectively. In both alignments, 94.4% of cases were within 3° of the optimal value. The PMI group had less outliers than conventional group in rotational alignment (p = 0.018). Conclusions Our 3D analysis provided evidence that PMI system resulted in reasonably satisfactory alignments both intraoperatively and postoperatively. Surgeons should be aware that certain surgical techniques including bone cutting, and the associated errors may affect postoperative alignment despite accurate PMI positioning.
AB - Background It is questionable that the accuracies of patient-matched instrumentation (PMI) have been controversial, even though many surgeons follow manufacturers’ recommendations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of intraoperative procedures and the postoperative alignment of the femoral side using PMI with 3-dimensional (3D) analysis. Methods Eighteen knees that underwent total knee arthroplasty using MRI-based PMI were assessed. Intraoperative alignment and bone resection errors of the femoral side were evaluated with a CT-based navigation system. A conventional adjustable guide was used to compare cartilage data with that derived by PMI intraoperatively. Postoperative alignment was assessed using a 3D coordinate system with a computer-assisted design software. We also measured the postoperative alignments using conventional alignment guides with the 3D evaluation. Results Intraoperative coronal alignment with PMI was 90.9° ± 1.6°. Seventeen knees (94.4%) were within 3° of the optimal alignment. Intraoperative rotational alignment of the femoral guide position of PMI was 0.2° ± 1.6°compared with the adjustable guide, with 17 knees (94.4%) differing by 3° or less between the two methods. Maximum differences in coronal and rotation alignment before and after bone cutting were 2.0° and 2.8° respectively. Postoperative coronal and rotational alignments were 89.4° ± 1.8° and −1.1° ± 1.3° respectively. In both alignments, 94.4% of cases were within 3° of the optimal value. The PMI group had less outliers than conventional group in rotational alignment (p = 0.018). Conclusions Our 3D analysis provided evidence that PMI system resulted in reasonably satisfactory alignments both intraoperatively and postoperatively. Surgeons should be aware that certain surgical techniques including bone cutting, and the associated errors may affect postoperative alignment despite accurate PMI positioning.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85033369095&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85033369095&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jos.2017.08.010
DO - 10.1016/j.jos.2017.08.010
M3 - Article
C2 - 28888738
AN - SCOPUS:85033369095
SN - 0949-2658
VL - 22
SP - 1077
EP - 1083
JO - Journal of Orthopaedic Science
JF - Journal of Orthopaedic Science
IS - 6
ER -