Malin Meier1, Jonathan Webb2, Jamie E Collins3, Johannes Beckmann4, Wolfgang Fitz5. 1. University of Ulm, Helmholzstraße 16, 89081, Ulm, Germany. 2. Mayo Clinic Health System in Eau Claire, Luther Campus Clinic, 1400 Bellinger Street, Eau Claire, WI, 54703, USA. 3. Orthopedic Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. 4. Sportklinik Stuttgart, Taubenheimstr. 8, 70372, Stuttgart, Germany. 5. Orthopedic Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. wfitz@partners.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study is to compare newer designs of various symmetric and asymmetric tibial components and measure tibial bone coverage using the rotational safe zone defined by two commonly utilized anatomic rotational landmarks. METHODS: Computed tomography scans (CT scans) of one hundred consecutive patients scheduled for total knee arthroplasty were obtained pre-operatively. A virtual proximal tibial cut was performed and two commonly used rotational axes were added for each image: the medio-lateral axis (ML-axis) and the medial 1/3 tibial tubercle axis (med-1/3-axis). Different symmetric and asymmetric implant designs were then superimposed in various rotational positions for best cancellous and cortical coverage. The images were imported to a public domain imaging software, and cancellous and cortical bone coverage was computed for each image, with each implant design in various rotational positions. RESULTS: One single implant type could not be identified that provided the best cortical and cancellous coverage of the tibia, irrespective of using the med-1/3-axis or the ML-axis for rotational alignment. However, it could be confirmed that the best bone coverage was dependent on the selected rotational landmark. Furthermore, improved bone coverage was observed when tibial implant positions were optimized between the two rotational axes. CONCLUSIONS: Tibial coverage is similar for symmetric and asymmetric designs, but depends on the rotational landmark for which the implant is designed. The surgeon has the option to improve tibial coverage by optimizing placement between the two anatomic rotational alignment landmarks, the medial 1/3 and the ML-axis. Surgeons should be careful assessing intraoperative rotational tibial placement using the described anatomic rotational landmarks to optimize tibial bony coverage without compromising patella tracking. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study is to compare newer designs of various symmetric and asymmetric tibial components and measure tibial bone coverage using the rotational safe zone defined by two commonly utilized anatomic rotational landmarks. METHODS: Computed tomography scans (CT scans) of one hundred consecutive patients scheduled for total knee arthroplasty were obtained pre-operatively. A virtual proximal tibial cut was performed and two commonly used rotational axes were added for each image: the medio-lateral axis (ML-axis) and the medial 1/3 tibial tubercle axis (med-1/3-axis). Different symmetric and asymmetric implant designs were then superimposed in various rotational positions for best cancellous and cortical coverage. The images were imported to a public domain imaging software, and cancellous and cortical bone coverage was computed for each image, with each implant design in various rotational positions. RESULTS: One single implant type could not be identified that provided the best cortical and cancellous coverage of the tibia, irrespective of using the med-1/3-axis or the ML-axis for rotational alignment. However, it could be confirmed that the best bone coverage was dependent on the selected rotational landmark. Furthermore, improved bone coverage was observed when tibial implant positions were optimized between the two rotational axes. CONCLUSIONS: Tibial coverage is similar for symmetric and asymmetric designs, but depends on the rotational landmark for which the implant is designed. The surgeon has the option to improve tibial coverage by optimizing placement between the two anatomic rotational alignment landmarks, the medial 1/3 and the ML-axis. Surgeons should be careful assessing intraoperative rotational tibial placement using the described anatomic rotational landmarks to optimize tibial bony coverage without compromising patella tracking. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Entities:
Keywords:
Rotational alignment; Tibial coverage; Tibial rotation; Total knee arthroplasty; Total knee replacement
Authors: Eduard J De Valk; Julia C A Noorduyn; Eduard L A R Mutsaerts Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2016-09-21 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Thomas Anijs; Sanne Eemers; Yukihide Minoda; David Wolfson; Nico Verdonschot; Dennis Janssen Journal: J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater Date: 2021-10-18 Impact factor: 3.405