Literature DB >> 25793170

Computerised tomography vs magnetic resonance imaging for modeling of patient-specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty.

Paul Stirling1, Rejith Valsalan Mannambeth1, Agustin Soler1, Vineet Batta1, Rajeev Kumar Malhotra1, Yegappan Kalairajah1.   

Abstract

AIM: To summarise and compare currently available evidence regarding accuracy of pre-operative imaging, which is one of the key choices for surgeons contemplating patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) surgery.
METHODS: The MEDLINE and EMBASE medical literature databases were searched, from January 1990 to December 2013, to identify relevant studies. The data from several clinical studies was assimilated to allow appreciation and comparison of the accuracy of each modality. The overall accuracy of each modality was calculated as proportion of outliers > 3% in the coronal plane of both computerised tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
RESULTS: Seven clinical studies matched our inclusion criteria for comparison and were included in our study for statistical analysis. Three of these reported series using MRI and four with CT. Overall percentage of outliers > 3% in patients with CT-based PSI systems was 12.5% vs 16.9% for MRI-based systems. These results were not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION: Although many studies have been undertaken to determine the ideal pre-operative imaging modality, conclusions remain speculative in the absence of long term data. Ultimately, information regarding accuracy of CT and MRI will be the main determining factor. Increased accuracy of pre-operative imaging could result in longer-term savings, and reduced accumulated dose of radiation by eliminating the need for post-operative imaging and revision surgery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Accuracy; Alignment; Arthroplasty; Cost-effectiveness; Patient-specific instrumentation

Year:  2015        PMID: 25793170      PMCID: PMC4363812          DOI: 10.5312/wjo.v6.i2.290

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Orthop        ISSN: 2218-5836


  38 in total

1.  Cost effectiveness of revision total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Alexander W R Burns; Robert B Bourne; Bert M Chesworth; Steven J MacDonald; Cecil H Rorabeck
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Quantification of the accuracy of MRI generated 3D models of long bones compared to CT generated 3D models.

Authors:  Kanchana Rathnayaka; Konstantin I Momot; Hansrudi Noser; Andrew Volp; Michael A Schuetz; Tony Sahama; Beat Schmutz
Journal:  Med Eng Phys       Date:  2011-08-19       Impact factor: 2.242

3.  Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT.

Authors:  D Brenner; C Elliston; E Hall; W Berdon
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002.

Authors:  Steven Kurtz; Fionna Mowat; Kevin Ong; Nathan Chan; Edmund Lau; Michael Halpern
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  Validation of three-dimensional reconstructions of knee anatomy: CT vs MR imaging.

Authors:  D K Smith; T H Berquist; K N An; R A Robb; E Y Chao
Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr       Date:  1989 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.826

6.  A comparison of conventional and patient-specific instruments in total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Kiriakos Daniilidis; Carsten O Tibesku
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-07-31       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Is TKA using patient-specific instruments comparable to conventional TKA? A randomized controlled study of one system.

Authors:  Yoon Whan Roh; Tae Woo Kim; Sahnghoon Lee; Sang Cheol Seong; Myung Chul Lee
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-08-02       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  The value of patient-matched instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  John W Noble; Chris A Moore; Ning Liu
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2011-09-09       Impact factor: 4.757

9.  Patient-specific instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty does not match the pre-operative plan as assessed by intra-operative computer-assisted navigation.

Authors:  Corey Scholes; Varun Sahni; Sebastien Lustig; David A Parker; Myles R J Coolican
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2013-09-17       Impact factor: 4.342

10.  [Rotational malalignment of the components may cause chronic pain or early failure in total knee arthroplasty].

Authors:  S Hofmann; J Romero; E Roth-Schiffl; T Albrecht
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 1.087

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  [Partial replacement of the knee joint with patient-specific instruments and implants (ConforMIS iUni, iDuo)].

Authors:  J Beckmann; A Steinert; C Zilkens; A Zeh; C Schnurr; M Schmitt-Sody; M Gebauer
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 1.087

2.  Comparison of Clinical, Functional, and Radiological Outcomes of Total Knee Arthroplasty Using Conventional and Patient-Specific Instrumentation.

Authors:  Soheil Mehdipour; Mohamad Qoreishi; Ali Keipourfard
Journal:  Arch Bone Jt Surg       Date:  2020-09

3.  Computerized tomography based "patient specific blocks" improve postoperative mechanical alignment in primary total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Raju Vaishya; Vipul Vijay; Vikas P Birla; Amit K Agarwal
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2016-07-18

4.  Validity of computed tomographic measurements and morphological comparison of cubital tunnel in idiopathic cubital tunnel syndrome.

Authors:  Sang Ki Lee; Seok Young Hwang; Won Sik Choy
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-02-05       Impact factor: 2.362

5.  Accuracy of bone resection in total knee arthroplasty using CT assisted-3D printed patient specific cutting guides.

Authors:  Ikram Nizam; Ashish V Batra
Journal:  SICOT J       Date:  2018-07-13
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.