Vlad Predescu1, Catalin Prescura2, Razvan Olaru2, Liliana Savin3, Paul Botez4, Bogdan Deleanu5. 1. University of Medicine and Pharmacy "Carol Davila", Bucharest, Romania. 2. Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma, St Pantelimon Clinical Hospital, Bucharest, Romania. 3. Orthopaedics and Trauma Clinic, Rehabilitation Clinical Hospital Iasi, UMF Gr T Popa Iasi, Iasi, Romania. 4. Orthopaedics and Trauma Clinic, Rehabilitation Clinical Hospital Iasi, UMF Gr T Popa Iasi, Iasi, Romania. paulbotez@yahoo.com. 5. Victor Babes University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Timisoara, Romania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The key to a successful knee replacement is restoring normal kinematics with a neutral alignment, thus a hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle of 180° (within 3° limits). Conventional TKR is proven to have excellent results but relies in extensive visual referencing of bony landmarks. Customised cutting blocks provide accurate bone cuts, also lowering the risk of fat embolism, blood loss and operating time. METHOD: We share our experience comparing two different TKA techniques using patient specific instrumentation (PSI) with the Visionaire knee and conventional instrumentation (CVI) from the same system (Genesis II Smith&Nephew). A total number of 80 knees were divided into two equal groups, 40 PSI and 40 CVI respectively, operated between April 2013 and August 2014. One female patient had bilateral TKR during this period, at six months interval, both with the PSI. RESULTS: All operated knees had varus deformity, with a mean HKA of 168° (PSI) vs 163° (CVI). We used tranexamic acid (double-dose scheme) and suction drains for 48 hours, with a mean blood drainage in the PSI group of 185 ml and Hb levels of 11.2 g/dl at three days post, compared to 260 ml and 10.7 g/dl in the CVI. Mean blood loss was 3.5 g/dl in PSI, and 4.2 g/dl in the CVI. On the long leg standing radiograph at six weeks, all knees were aligned in frontal plane, with simillar HKA values (178.9° PSI vs 178.6° CVI). Bone cuts measured intraoperatively proved to be accurate within a 1 mm limit. CONCLUSIONS: We cannot recommend PSI-TKR for a better outcome. It is an alternative to conventional and computer-assisted TKR, but further studies are needed to evaluate weather surgical or economic benefits may be achieved by choosing customised instruments.
BACKGROUND: The key to a successful knee replacement is restoring normal kinematics with a neutral alignment, thus a hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle of 180° (within 3° limits). Conventional TKR is proven to have excellent results but relies in extensive visual referencing of bony landmarks. Customised cutting blocks provide accurate bone cuts, also lowering the risk of fat embolism, blood loss and operating time. METHOD: We share our experience comparing two different TKA techniques using patient specific instrumentation (PSI) with the Visionaire knee and conventional instrumentation (CVI) from the same system (Genesis II Smith&Nephew). A total number of 80 knees were divided into two equal groups, 40 PSI and 40 CVI respectively, operated between April 2013 and August 2014. One female patient had bilateral TKR during this period, at six months interval, both with the PSI. RESULTS: All operated knees had varus deformity, with a mean HKA of 168° (PSI) vs 163° (CVI). We used tranexamic acid (double-dose scheme) and suction drains for 48 hours, with a mean blood drainage in the PSI group of 185 ml and Hb levels of 11.2 g/dl at three days post, compared to 260 ml and 10.7 g/dl in the CVI. Mean blood loss was 3.5 g/dl in PSI, and 4.2 g/dl in the CVI. On the long leg standing radiograph at six weeks, all knees were aligned in frontal plane, with simillar HKA values (178.9° PSI vs 178.6° CVI). Bone cuts measured intraoperatively proved to be accurate within a 1 mm limit. CONCLUSIONS: We cannot recommend PSI-TKR for a better outcome. It is an alternative to conventional and computer-assisted TKR, but further studies are needed to evaluate weather surgical or economic benefits may be achieved by choosing customised instruments.
Authors: Alfonso Manzotti; Pietro Cerveri; Elena De Momi; Chris Pullen; Norberto Confalonieri Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2009-06-10 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: J-N Argenson; S Boisgard; S Parratte; S Descamps; M Bercovy; P Bonnevialle; J-L Briard; J Brilhault; J Chouteau; R Nizard; D Saragaglia; E Servien Journal: Orthop Traumatol Surg Res Date: 2013-05-02 Impact factor: 2.256
Authors: Etienne Cavaignac; Regis Pailhé; Gregoire Laumond; Jérôme Murgier; Nicolas Reina; Jean Michel Laffosse; Emilie Bérard; Philippe Chiron Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2014-10-10 Impact factor: 3.075
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: Mihail-Lazar Mioc; Radu Prejbeanu; Dinu Vermesan; Horia Haragus; Marius Niculescu; Daniel Laurentiu Pop; Andrei Dan Balanescu; Daniel Malita; Bogdan Deleanu Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2018-07-11 Impact factor: 2.362