PURPOSE: One of the important factors in a successful arthroplasty is component alignment. The primary objective of this study was to determine whether the fibular shaft reference technique is beneficial for the tibial component position on the postoperative plain radiograph after total knee arthroplasty. METHODS: A total of 42 patients between 2009 and 2011 were analysed retrospectively. The surgeon prepared the tibia using an extramedullary cutting guide and set the posterior tibial slope with respect to the fibular reference rod. In the postoperative radiographic measurements, a true anteroposterior and lateral radiograph of the lower leg covering the whole length of the tibia was used. RESULTS: Five patients were excluded as they did not meet the inclusion criteria, four patients were excluded due to improper radiographs and the study group was reduced to 33 patients and 35 knees. The mean preoperative tibiofibular angle was 2.1° ± 0.8°. The mean postoperative tibial sagittal angle measurements were 83.3° ± 1.4° (81°-86°). 33 (94 %) Knees gained the desired tibial sagittal angle within the desired alignment (5° ± 3°). The mean postoperative tibial coronal angle was 89.3° ± 1.5°. The tibial component coronal angle of two knees was more than 3 alignment from the neutral mechanical axis. CONCLUSION: The major clinical relevance of the technique described in the present study is cost-effectiveness, and it does not require any extra time or surgical equipment. This method can be used as an alternative choice for bulky extremities which is a cause of malalignment of the components. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective case series, Level IV.
PURPOSE: One of the important factors in a successful arthroplasty is component alignment. The primary objective of this study was to determine whether the fibular shaft reference technique is beneficial for the tibial component position on the postoperative plain radiograph after total knee arthroplasty. METHODS: A total of 42 patients between 2009 and 2011 were analysed retrospectively. The surgeon prepared the tibia using an extramedullary cutting guide and set the posterior tibial slope with respect to the fibular reference rod. In the postoperative radiographic measurements, a true anteroposterior and lateral radiograph of the lower leg covering the whole length of the tibia was used. RESULTS: Five patients were excluded as they did not meet the inclusion criteria, four patients were excluded due to improper radiographs and the study group was reduced to 33 patients and 35 knees. The mean preoperative tibiofibular angle was 2.1° ± 0.8°. The mean postoperative tibial sagittal angle measurements were 83.3° ± 1.4° (81°-86°). 33 (94 %) Knees gained the desired tibial sagittal angle within the desired alignment (5° ± 3°). The mean postoperative tibial coronal angle was 89.3° ± 1.5°. The tibial component coronal angle of two knees was more than 3 alignment from the neutral mechanical axis. CONCLUSION: The major clinical relevance of the technique described in the present study is cost-effectiveness, and it does not require any extra time or surgical equipment. This method can be used as an alternative choice for bulky extremities which is a cause of malalignment of the components. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective case series, Level IV.
Authors: Michael E Berend; Merrill A Ritter; John B Meding; Philip M Faris; E Michael Keating; Ryan Redelman; Gregory W Faris; Kenneth E Davis Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 4.176