Sang Jun Song1, Se Gu Kang1, Yeon Je Lee1, Kang Il Kim1, Cheol Hee Park2. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, South Korea. 2. Department of Medicine, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University, 23 Kyunghee-daero, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, 130-872, South Korea. rdohead@hanmail.net.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In the present study, the early results of sensor-assisted versus manually balanced posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for osteoarthritis with varus deformities were prospectively compared. METHODS:Fifty patients undergoingsensor-assisted TKA (group S) and 50 patients receivingmanually balanced TKA (group M) were prospectively compared. The groups did not differ in terms of demographics, preoperative clinical status, or severity of deformity. The knee and function scores (KS and FS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and range of motion (ROM) were evaluated clinically. The mechanical axes and positions of components were assessed radiographically. In sensor-assisted TKA, the medial and lateral compartment loads were compared based on the patellar positions of inversion and eversion. RESULTS: There was no between-group difference in the postoperative KS or FS (n.s., respectively). The average postoperative WOMAC score was 17.0 in group S and 18.0 in group M (n.s.). The ROM was 131.2° in group S and 130.8° in group M (n.s.). Neither the postoperative alignment of the mechanical axis nor the component positioning differed between the groups (n.s.). In sensor-assisted TKA, the difference between the medial and lateral compartment loads was less than 15 lbs (6.8 kg) in each knee. The lateral compartment load increased after patellar eversion (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: There are concerns about the cost-benefit ratio of the intraoperative load sensor, despite its advantage of more precisely assessing ligament balance without patellar eversion, which resulted in a smaller lateral gap. A long-term follow-up study with a large cohort is required. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: In the present study, the early results of sensor-assisted versus manually balanced posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for osteoarthritis with varus deformities were prospectively compared. METHODS: Fifty patients undergoing sensor-assisted TKA (group S) and 50 patients receiving manually balanced TKA (group M) were prospectively compared. The groups did not differ in terms of demographics, preoperative clinical status, or severity of deformity. The knee and function scores (KS and FS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and range of motion (ROM) were evaluated clinically. The mechanical axes and positions of components were assessed radiographically. In sensor-assisted TKA, the medial and lateral compartment loads were compared based on the patellar positions of inversion and eversion. RESULTS: There was no between-group difference in the postoperative KS or FS (n.s., respectively). The average postoperative WOMAC score was 17.0 in group S and 18.0 in group M (n.s.). The ROM was 131.2° in group S and 130.8° in group M (n.s.). Neither the postoperative alignment of the mechanical axis nor the component positioning differed between the groups (n.s.). In sensor-assisted TKA, the difference between the medial and lateral compartment loads was less than 15 lbs (6.8 kg) in each knee. The lateral compartment load increased after patellar eversion (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: There are concerns about the cost-benefit ratio of the intraoperative load sensor, despite its advantage of more precisely assessing ligament balance without patellar eversion, which resulted in a smaller lateral gap. A long-term follow-up study with a large cohort is required. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
Authors: Michael E Berend; Peter J Davis; Merrill A Ritter; E Michael Keating; Philip M Faris; John B Meding; Robert A Malinzak Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: G Kamei; Y Murakami; H Kazusa; S Hachisuka; H Inoue; H Nobutou; K Nishida; Y Mochizuki; M Ochi Journal: Orthop Traumatol Surg Res Date: 2011-03-31 Impact factor: 2.256
Authors: Jeffery L Pierson; Merrill A Ritter; E Michael Keating; Philip M Faris; John B Meding; Michael E Berend; Kenneth E Davis Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Kevin J Bozic; Steven M Kurtz; Edmund Lau; Kevin Ong; Vanessa Chiu; Thomas P Vail; Harry E Rubash; Daniel J Berry Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2009-06-25 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Samuel J MacDessi; Jil A Wood; Ashish D Diwan; Ian A Harris Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2020-03-13 Impact factor: 4.342