Literature DB >> 24719401

Total Ankle Arthroplasty Accuracy and Reproducibility Using Preoperative CT Scan-Derived, Patient-Specific Guides.

Gregory C Berlet1, Murray J Penner2, Sarah Lancianese3, Paul M Stemniski3, Richard M Obert3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Preoperative navigation has provided many potential benefits for total knee arthroplasty, including patient-specific alignment, repeatable implant placement, and decreased operative time. For the first time, this technology was applied to total ankle arthroplasty (TAA). This study evaluated repeatability of tibia and talus patient-specific guide placement and deviation between the preoperative plan and actual implant placement.
METHODS: Routine ankle CT scans were acquired of 15 cadaveric lower extremity limbs, converted into 3D solid models, and imported into a computer-assisted design assembly. Anatomic landmarks defining tibia/talus alignment were established and used to perform a virtual TAA. Commercially available implant components were placed to mimic traditional cases. An operative guide referencing the cadaver-specific anatomy was engineered to define the resection planes necessary to re-create virtual placement of traditional tibia and talus implants in the postoperative position. Board-certified TAA orthopaedic surgeons with no prior preoperative navigation experience placed the operative guides onto the bones based on tactile and visual feedback. Guide placement was repeated 4 times to determine variability. Final implant position was recorded with an infrared probe, confirmed with CT scans, and compared to the preoperative plan. Average deviations between planned and actual guide placement were determined for all rotational and translational degrees of freedom (DOF). In addition, implant component location was measured radiographically.
RESULTS: Intraobserver tibia and talus guide variation between all trials was 0.26 ± 0.18 degrees and 0.36 ± 0.25 degrees in flexion/extension, 0.61 ± 0.58 and 0.53 ± 0.53 in varus/valgus, and 0.79 ± 0.38 degrees and 1.15 ± 0.77 degrees in internal/external rotation, respectively. Average variation between preoperative and postoperative implant placement was less than 2 degrees and 1.4 mm in all specimens tested.
CONCLUSION: Preliminary data suggest that preoperative navigation and custom operative guides result in reliable and reproducible placement of TAA implants and patient-specific ankle alignment. Deviation of final implant placement from the preoperative plan was less than 2 degrees in all angular DOF, providing greater accuracy than the ±3 degrees determined in other implant system studies using traditional instrumentation and computer navigation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: We have further demonstrated that final implant position is successfully guided by these patient-specific guides, with reproducibility of tibial component placement falling within 2 degrees of the intended target. This level of reproducibility suggests a promise for this technology, and it is hoped this level of accuracy will become the benchmark for the next generation of total ankle arthroplasty.
© The Author(s) 2014.

Entities:  

Keywords:  arthritis; preoperative navigation system; total ankle arthroplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24719401     DOI: 10.1177/1071100714531232

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Foot Ankle Int        ISSN: 1071-1007            Impact factor:   2.827


  9 in total

Review 1.  Preoperative Guidance With Weight-Bearing Computed Tomography and Patient-Specific Instrumentation in Foot and Ankle Surgery.

Authors:  Jacob Zeitlin; Jensen Henry; Scott Ellis
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2021-07-07

2.  A Novel Method for Preoperative Positioning of Total Ankle Replacement Using 3D Digital Model.

Authors:  Shi-Xun Wu; Shi-Zhang Liu; Ming Ling; Yan-Hui Che; Xin Tian; Xiang-Long Duan; Zhi Yi
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2022-06-03       Impact factor: 2.279

Review 3.  Summary Report of the Arthritis Foundation and the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society's Symposium on Targets for Osteoarthritis Research: Part 2: Treatment Options.

Authors:  Jason S Kim; Annunziato Amendola; Alexej Barg; Judith Baumhauer; James W Brodsky; Daniel M Cushman; Tyler A Gonzalez; Dennis Janisse; Michael J Jurynec; J Lawrence Marsh; Carolyn M Sofka; Thomas O Clanton; Donald D Anderson
Journal:  Foot Ankle Orthop       Date:  2022-10-14

4.  Patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) in total ankle arthroplasty: a systematic review.

Authors:  Qiuyuan Wang; Nianfei Zhang; Wanshou Guo; Weiguo Wang; Qidong Zhang
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2021-08-04       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Accuracy of Weightbearing CT Scans for Patient-Specific Instrumentation in Total Ankle Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Mitchell J Thompson; Devon Consul; Benjamin D Umbel; Gregory C Berlet
Journal:  Foot Ankle Orthop       Date:  2021-12-08

6.  Comparison of Time and Cost Savings Using Different Cost Methodologies for Patient-Specific Instrumentation vs Standard Referencing in Total Ankle Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Ian Savage-Elliott; Victor J Wu; Isabella Wu; John Timothy Heffernan; Ramon Rodriguez
Journal:  Foot Ankle Orthop       Date:  2019-11-07

Review 7.  Patient-specific instrumentation in total ankle arthroplasty.

Authors:  Antonio Mazzotti; Alberto Arceri; Simone Zielli; Simone Bonelli; Valentina Viglione; Cesare Faldini
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2022-03-18

8.  Patient-Specific Instrumentation vs Standard Referencing in Total Ankle Arthroplasty: A Comparison of the Radiologic Outcome.

Authors:  Lukas Heisler; Werner Vach; Georg Katz; Thomas Egelhof; Markus Knupp
Journal:  Foot Ankle Int       Date:  2022-02-24       Impact factor: 3.569

9.  A new ligament-compatible patient-specific 3D-printed implant and instrumentation for total ankle arthroplasty: from biomechanical studies to clinical cases.

Authors:  C Faldini; A Mazzotti; C Belvedere; G Durastanti; A Panciera; G Geraci; A Leardini
Journal:  J Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2020-09-02
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.