Literature DB >> 29801179

In Vivo Tibial Fit and Rotational Analysis of a Customized, Patient-Specific TKA versus Off-the-Shelf TKA.

Lennart Schroeder1, Gregory Martin2.   

Abstract

In total knee arthroplasty (TKA), surgeons often face the decision of maximizing tibial component fit and achieving correct rotational alignment at the same time. Customized implants (CIMs) address this difficulty by aiming to replicate the anatomical joint structure, utilizing data from patient-specific knee geometry during the manufacturing. We intraoperatively compared component fit in four tibial zones of a CIM to that of three different off-the-shelf (OTS) TKA designs in 44 knees. Additionally, we assessed the rotational alignment of the tibia using computed tomography (CT)-based computer aided design model analysis. Overall the CIM device showed significantly better component fit than the OTS TKAs. While 18% of OTS designs presented an implant overhang of 3 mm or more, none of the CIM components did (p < 0.05). There was a larger percentage of CIMs seen with optimal fit (≤1 mm implant overhang to ≤1 mm tibial bone undercoverage) than in OTS TKAs. Also, OTS implants showed significantly more component underhang of ≥3 mm than the CIM design (37 vs. 18%). The rotational analysis revealed that 45% of the OTS tibial components showed a rotational deviation of more than 5 degrees and 4% of more than 10 degrees to a tibial rotational axis described by Cobb et al. No deviation was seen for the CIM, as the device is designed along this axis. Using the medial one-third of the tibial tubercle as the rotational landmark, 95% of the OTS trays demonstrated a rotational deviation of more than 5 degrees and 73% of more than 10 degrees compared with 73% of CIM tibial trays with more than 5 degrees and 27% with more than 10 degrees. Based on our findings, we believe that the CIM TKA provides both better rotational alignment and tibial fit without causing overhang of the tibial tray than the three examined OTS implants. Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29801179     DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1653966

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Knee Surg        ISSN: 1538-8506            Impact factor:   2.757


  10 in total

1.  Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Component Size Prediction with 3-Dimensional Pre-Operative Digital Planning.

Authors:  Michael T Freehill; Jack W Weick; Brent A Ponce; Asheesh Bedi; Derek Haas; Bethany Ruffino; Chris Robbins; Alexander M Prete; John G Costouros; Jon Jp Warner
Journal:  J Shoulder Elb Arthroplast       Date:  2022-05-06

Review 2.  Three-dimensional Printing in Orthopaedic Surgery: Current Applications and Future Developments.

Authors:  Colleen M Wixted; Jonathan R Peterson; Rishin J Kadakia; Samuel B Adams
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev       Date:  2021-04-20

3.  Custom Implants in TKA Provide No Substantial Benefit in Terms of Outcome Scores, Reoperation Risk, or Mean Alignment: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Eran Beit Ner; Saad Dosani; Leela C Biant; Gwenllian Fflur Tawy
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 4.755

Review 4.  Biomechanical and Clinical Effect of Patient-Specific or Customized Knee Implants: A Review.

Authors:  Jin-Ah Lee; Yong-Gon Koh; Kyoung-Tak Kang
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2020-05-21       Impact factor: 4.241

5.  A Retrospective Study Comparing a Patient-specific Design Total Knee Arthroplasty With an Off-the-Shelf Design: Unexpected Catastrophic Failure Seen in the Early Patient-specific Design.

Authors:  Carlos J Meheux; Kwan J Park; Terry A Clyburn
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev       Date:  2019-11-04

6.  The Impact of Total Knee Replacement with a Customized Cruciate-Retaining Implant Design on Patient-Reported and Functional Outcomes.

Authors:  Andre F Steinert; Lennart Schröder; Lukas Sefrin; Björn Janßen; Jörg Arnholdt; Maximilian Rudert
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-01-31

7.  No difference in patient-reported satisfaction after 12 months between customised individually made and off-the-shelf total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Séverin Wendelspiess; Raphael Kaelin; Nicole Vogel; Thomas Rychen; Markus P Arnold
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2022-02-12       Impact factor: 4.114

8.  A computational tool for automatic selection of total knee replacement implant size using X-ray images.

Authors:  Thomas A Burge; Gareth G Jones; Christopher M Jordan; Jonathan R T Jeffers; Connor W Myant
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2022-09-29

Review 9.  Clinical and Radiological Outcomes after Knee Arthroplasty with Patient-Specific versus Off-the-Shelf Knee Implants: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Céline Saphena Moret; Benjamin Luca Schelker; Michael Tobias Hirschmann
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2021-06-22

Review 10.  Contemporary knee arthroplasty: one fits all or time for diversity?

Authors:  Johannes Beckmann; Malin Kristin Meier; Christian Benignus; Andreas Hecker; Emmanuel Thienpont
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-07-16       Impact factor: 3.067

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.