Justin A M J van Leeuwen1, Stephan M Röhrl2. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Betanien Hospital, Skien, Norway. justin.van.leeuwen@betanienhospital.no. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate whether the intended preoperative planning corresponded with the postoperative component position after medial UKA using patient-specific positioning guides (PSPGs). METHODS: Twenty-five consecutive UKAs performed with the PSPG technique (Signature™) were included. Two independent observers performed postoperative CT measurements. The preoperative angles for the femoral component were defined in the frontal plane as 0°. In the first eight cases, a femoral component with single peg was inserted, and the flexion of the femoral component was set to 5°. In the last 17 cases, a twin-peg component was used and flexion set to 10°. In the axial plane, the femoral component was on average set at 2.5° internal rotation. The preoperative tibial component angles in the frontal and axial plane were defined as 0° and in the sagittal plane as 4° in flexion. RESULTS: The postoperative femoral component angles were on average 0.8° of valgus (SD 3.2, range 12.2° valgus to 5.1° varus, n.s., CI -2.1 to 0.6), 5.0° of flexion (SD 3.9, range 10.2° flexion to 6.0° extension, p = 0.001, CI -5.3 to -1.5) and 4.0° of internal rotation (SD 1.7, range 1.4° to 6.9° int.rot., p < 0.001, CI -4.7 to -3.4). The tibial component angles were on average 3.0° of varus (SD 1.9, range 1.3° valgus to 6.8° varus, p < 0.001, CI 2.2 to 3.8), 3.2° of flexion (SD 2.4°, 6.7° flex to 1.8° ext, n.s., CI -0.2 to 1.7) and 2.7° of internal rotation (SD 7.0, range 16.6° int.rot. to 10.7° ext.rot., n.s., CI -5.6 to 0.2). CONCLUSION: This study showed no agreement between preoperative planning and postoperative component alignment (p < 0.05) for the femoral component angle in sagittal and axial plane and for the tibial component angle in the coronal plane. Although the results did not show significant difference for the tibial component angle in the axial plane, a considerable range of the component angles was found varying from 17° internal to 11° external rotation. This study suggests that the use of PSPGs for UKA does not lead to consistent component position. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
PURPOSE: To investigate whether the intended preoperative planning corresponded with the postoperative component position after medial UKA using patient-specific positioning guides (PSPGs). METHODS: Twenty-five consecutive UKAs performed with the PSPG technique (Signature™) were included. Two independent observers performed postoperative CT measurements. The preoperative angles for the femoral component were defined in the frontal plane as 0°. In the first eight cases, a femoral component with single peg was inserted, and the flexion of the femoral component was set to 5°. In the last 17 cases, a twin-peg component was used and flexion set to 10°. In the axial plane, the femoral component was on average set at 2.5° internal rotation. The preoperative tibial component angles in the frontal and axial plane were defined as 0° and in the sagittal plane as 4° in flexion. RESULTS: The postoperative femoral component angles were on average 0.8° of valgus (SD 3.2, range 12.2° valgus to 5.1° varus, n.s., CI -2.1 to 0.6), 5.0° of flexion (SD 3.9, range 10.2° flexion to 6.0° extension, p = 0.001, CI -5.3 to -1.5) and 4.0° of internal rotation (SD 1.7, range 1.4° to 6.9° int.rot., p < 0.001, CI -4.7 to -3.4). The tibial component angles were on average 3.0° of varus (SD 1.9, range 1.3° valgus to 6.8° varus, p < 0.001, CI 2.2 to 3.8), 3.2° of flexion (SD 2.4°, 6.7° flex to 1.8° ext, n.s., CI -0.2 to 1.7) and 2.7° of internal rotation (SD 7.0, range 16.6° int.rot. to 10.7° ext.rot., n.s., CI -5.6 to 0.2). CONCLUSION: This study showed no agreement between preoperative planning and postoperative component alignment (p < 0.05) for the femoral component angle in sagittal and axial plane and for the tibial component angle in the coronal plane. Although the results did not show significant difference for the tibial component angle in the axial plane, a considerable range of the component angles was found varying from 17° internal to 11° external rotation. This study suggests that the use of PSPGs for UKA does not lead to consistent component position. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 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
Authors: Peter Vorlat; Guy Putzeys; Dominique Cottenie; Tom Van Isacker; Nicole Pouliart; Frank Handelberg; Pierre-Paul Casteleyn; Filip Gheysen; René Verdonk Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2005-05-14 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Thomas J Aleto; Michael E Berend; Merrill A Ritter; Philip M Faris; R Michael Meneghini Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Vincent Y Ng; Jeffrey H DeClaire; Keith R Berend; Bethany C Gulick; Adolph V Lombardi Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: B Kerens; A M Leenders; M G M Schotanus; B Boonen; W E Tuinebreijer; P J Emans; B Jong; N P Kort Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2017-12-27 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: A M Leenders; M G M Schotanus; R J P Wind; R A P Borghans; N P Kort Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2018-04-30 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Abtin Alvand; Tanvir Khan; Cathy Jenkins; Jonathan L Rees; William F Jackson; Christopher A F Dodd; David W Murray; Andrew J Price Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2017-08-22 Impact factor: 4.342