PURPOSE: The measured resection technique and the gap-balancing technique are two philosophies used in total knee surgery. It is still unknown whether one or the other technique provides superior results when computer-assisted surgery is performed. We hypothesized that the gap-balancing technique improves joint stability because the technique relies primarily on the soft tissue. METHODS: A prospective controlled study was performed in 116 patients using the tibia-first or femur-first technique. The Columbus(TM) total knee system and the Orthopilot(®) (Aesculap(®) AG, Tuttlingen, Germany) navigation system were used in all cases. Sixty-three patients were allocated to the femur-first technique (group F) and 53 patients to the tibial first technique (group T). The mean follow-up time was 11.4 ± 1.1 months. The KSS, KOOS and SF-36 were taken prior to surgery and at the time of follow-up for clinical assessment. Long-leg weight-bearing radiographs were performed to assess ligament alignment. Radiographs in varus and valgus stress were performed using the Telos(®)-Instrument (Telos(®) GmbH, Greisheim, Germany) under a force of 15 N at the time of follow-up for the assessment of medial-lateral stability. The nonparametric t test (Mann-Whitney U-test) was used in order to compare the ligament stability and the scores between group F and group T. RESULTS: The lateral joint space opening for groups F and T was 3.4° ± 1.4° and 3.9° ± 1.7°, respectively (n.s.), and the medial joint space opening for groups F and T was 4° ± 1.4° and 4.1° ± 1.7°, respectively (n.s.). The femorotibial mechanical axis for groups F and T revealed 1.4° ± 1.2° and 0.7° ± 2.0° of varus, respectively (p = 0.138). The clinical assessment showed significant improvement according to KSS, KOOS and SF-36 in all subscales. Neither of the sores showed significant differences between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The surgeon should use his/her preferred surgical technique providing the implantation is performed with computer assistance. It remains unclear whether the same findings will occur after conventional surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The measured resection technique and the gap-balancing technique are two philosophies used in total knee surgery. It is still unknown whether one or the other technique provides superior results when computer-assisted surgery is performed. We hypothesized that the gap-balancing technique improves joint stability because the technique relies primarily on the soft tissue. METHODS: A prospective controlled study was performed in 116 patients using the tibia-first or femur-first technique. The Columbus(TM) total knee system and the Orthopilot(®) (Aesculap(®) AG, Tuttlingen, Germany) navigation system were used in all cases. Sixty-three patients were allocated to the femur-first technique (group F) and 53 patients to the tibial first technique (group T). The mean follow-up time was 11.4 ± 1.1 months. The KSS, KOOS and SF-36 were taken prior to surgery and at the time of follow-up for clinical assessment. Long-leg weight-bearing radiographs were performed to assess ligament alignment. Radiographs in varus and valgus stress were performed using the Telos(®)-Instrument (Telos(®) GmbH, Greisheim, Germany) under a force of 15 N at the time of follow-up for the assessment of medial-lateral stability. The nonparametric t test (Mann-Whitney U-test) was used in order to compare the ligament stability and the scores between group F and group T. RESULTS: The lateral joint space opening for groups F and T was 3.4° ± 1.4° and 3.9° ± 1.7°, respectively (n.s.), and the medial joint space opening for groups F and T was 4° ± 1.4° and 4.1° ± 1.7°, respectively (n.s.). The femorotibial mechanical axis for groups F and T revealed 1.4° ± 1.2° and 0.7° ± 2.0° of varus, respectively (p = 0.138). The clinical assessment showed significant improvement according to KSS, KOOS and SF-36 in all subscales. Neither of the sores showed significant differences between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The surgeon should use his/her preferred surgical technique providing the implantation is performed with computer assistance. It remains unclear whether the same findings will occur after conventional surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
Authors: Markus Tingart; Christian Lüring; Holger Bäthis; Johannes Beckmann; Joachim Grifka; Lars Perlick Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2007-09-26 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Markus S Kuster; Benjamin O Jeffcote; Andreas C Schirm; Hilaire Jacob; Rochelle L Nicholls Journal: Knee Date: 2009-02-11 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Paweł Skowronek; Markus Arnold; Christian Starke; Agnieszka Bartyzel; Lukas B Moser; Michael T Hirschmann Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2020-04-30 Impact factor: 4.342