| Literature DB >> 26879010 |
Jin Zhang, Xiao-Bin Tian, Li Sun, Ru-Yin Hu, Jia-Liang Tian, Wei Han, Jin-Min Zhao1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The conventional method cannot guarantee the precise osteotomies required for a perfect realignment and a better prognosis after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This study investigated a customized guide plate for osteotomy placement in TKAs with the aid of the statistical shape model technique using weight-bearing lower-extremity X-rays and computed tomography (CT) images of the knee.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26879010 PMCID: PMC4800837 DOI: 10.4103/0366-6999.176082
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Chin Med J (Engl) ISSN: 0366-6999 Impact factor: 2.628
Figure 1Photo of calibrated leg. (a) Frontal view. (b) Lateral view.
Figure 2X-ray images of calibrated weight-bearing full-length lower limb. (a) Anteroposterior image. (b) Lateral image.
Figure 3Registration between the three-dimensional model synthesized from calibrated X-ray and three-dimensional model from computed tomography. (a) The three dimensional diagrammatic sketch of registration. (b) The anteroposterior film after registration. (c) The lateral film after registration.
Figure 4Anterior and posterior condylar osteotomy line is parallel to surgical transepicondylar axis.
Figure 5The nonhead screws’ positions were determined according the guide plates in order to locate the osteotomy devices. (a) The guide plate determined the positions of the nonhead screws in the proximal tibia. (b) The nonhead screws determined the positions of the proximal tibial osteotomy divices. (c) The guide plate determined the positions of the nonhead screws in the distal femur. (d)The nonhead screws determined the positions of the anterior and posterior condylar osteotomy divices.
Figure 6Postoperative coronal femoral/tibial angles and the angle between posterior condylar osteotomy surface and the surgical transepicondylar axis. (a) The postoperative coronal femoral/tibial angles were 90°. (b) The postoperative angle between posterior condylar osteotomy surface and the surgical transepicondylar axis was 0°.
Comparing the outcomes of the GPG and the TSG
| Items | GPG | TSG | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operation time (min) | 49.0 ± 10.5 | 62.0 ± 9.7 | –16.53 | 0.018 |
| Coronal femoral angle (°) | 89.2 ± 1.7 | 86.7 ± 2.9 | 2.57 | 0.036 |
| Coronal tibial angle (°) | 89.0 ± 1.1 | 87.6 ± 2.1 | 2.42 | 0.023 |
| Posterior tibial slope (°) | 6.6 ± 1.4 | 8.9 ± 2.8 | –19.35 | 0.013 |
| Angle between posterior condylar osteotomy surface and the STEA (°) | 0.9 ± 0.3 | 1.7 ± 0.8 | –26.37 | 0.009 |
| HSS score 3 months after surgery | 83.7 ± 18.4 | 71.5 ± 15.2 | 3.31 | 0.029 |
HSS: Hospital for Special Surgery; GPG: Guide plate group; TSG: Traditional surgery group; STEA: Surgical transepicondylar axis.