Literature DB >> 32146591

Conventional instruments are more accurate for measuring the depth of the tibial cut than computer-assisted surgery in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective study.

Antonio Klasan1, Sven Edward Putnis2, Samuel Grasso2, Thomas Neri2, Myles Raphael Coolican2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The most commonly used tool for implant positioning are conventional instruments (CI) followed by computer-assisted surgery (CAS). A number of studies have investigated the cutting error of the tibial component when CAS is used, but most of them were focused on the cutting angles. The accuracy of CAS to determine the depth of the cut has not received much attention, even though implications are similar or worse, than with an angle mismatch.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an ethics board approved, prospective study of 23 consecutive varus TKAs by a single surgeon. Implant positioning was performed using CAS; however, the depth of the tibial cut was determined with both CAS and CI. Targeted alignment was the mechanical axis and 3° of posterior slope. The planned and the achieved cut, as determined by CAS needed to match. The achieved cut was then measured using a caliper and compared to the depth of the cut as per CAS. Medial and lateral cuts were analyzed separately. Analysis of variance and Bland-Altman plots were used for the comparison.
RESULTS: Mean medial navigated cut was 6.3 (± 2.2) mm, mean measured medial cut was 6.6 (± 2.3) mm. Mean lateral navigated cut was 8.9 (± 1.8) mm, mean measured lateral cut was 8.8 (± 1.5) mm. There was a statistical significance for both the medial (p < 0.001) and the lateral (p = 0.004) navigated and measured cuts.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that the tibial cut depth, measured by the navigation, does not match the actual bony cuts performed, even if a perfect cut was achieved in both sagittal and coronal plane. Surgeons should be aware of the measurement error in the navigation system and potentially add an additional step for verifying the achieved depth of the cut.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Arthroplasty; Bone cut; Knee; Navigation; Tibial component

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32146591     DOI: 10.1007/s00402-020-03403-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg        ISSN: 0936-8051            Impact factor:   3.067


  29 in total

1.  Assessment of patient-specific instrumentation precision through bone resection measurements.

Authors:  F Zambianchi; A Colombelli; V Digennaro; A Marcovigi; R Mugnai; F Fiacchi; D Sandoni; A Belluati; F Catani
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-12-24       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Accuracy of a hand-held surgical navigation system for tibial resection in total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  William D Bugbee; Arash Y Kermanshahi; Michelle M Munro; Julie C McCauley; Steven N Copp
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2014-10-12       Impact factor: 2.199

3.  An accelerometer-based navigation did not improve the femoral component positioning compared to a modified conventional technique of pre-operatively planned placement of intramedullary rod in total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Tadashi Tsukeoka; Yoshikazu Tsuneizumi; Kensuke Yoshino
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2019-02-13       Impact factor: 3.067

4.  Case-related factors affecting cutting errors of the proximal tibia in total knee arthroplasty assessed by computer navigation.

Authors:  Tadashi Tsukeoka; Yoshikazu Tsuneizumi; Kensuke Yoshino; Mashiko Suzuki
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-12-22       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Cutting and implanting errors in minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty using a navigation system.

Authors:  Masahiro Hasegawa; Kakunoshin Yoshida; Hiroki Wakabayashi; Akihiro Sudo
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-10-28       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Influence of the optical system and anatomic points on computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  B Schlatterer; J-M Linares; P Chabrand; J-M Sprauel; J-N Argenson
Journal:  Orthop Traumatol Surg Res       Date:  2014-05-14       Impact factor: 2.256

7.  Patient-specific instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty does not match the pre-operative plan as assessed by intra-operative computer-assisted navigation.

Authors:  Corey Scholes; Varun Sahni; Sebastien Lustig; David A Parker; Myles R J Coolican
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2013-09-17       Impact factor: 4.342

8.  Resection accuracy of patient-specific cutting guides in total knee replacement.

Authors:  Gregory C Wernecke; Scott Taylor; Penny Wernecke; Samuel J MacDessi; Darren B Chen
Journal:  ANZ J Surg       Date:  2017-08-29       Impact factor: 1.872

9.  Unsatisfactory accuracy as determined by computer navigation of VISIONAIRE patient-specific instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Sébastien Lustig; Corey J Scholes; Sam I Oussedik; Vera Kinzel; Myles R J Coolican; David A Parker
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2012-11-12       Impact factor: 4.757

10.  Erratum to: Improving outcomes in total knee arthroplasty-do navigation or customized implants have a role?

Authors:  Matthew D Beal; Dimitri Delagrammaticas; David Fitz
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2016-10-14       Impact factor: 2.359

View more
  6 in total

1.  Handheld computer-navigated constrained total knee arthroplasty for complex extra-articular deformities.

Authors:  M Pietsch; M Hochegger; O Djahani; G Mlaker; M Eder-Halbedl; Th Hofstädter
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-07-13       Impact factor: 3.067

Review 2.  Assistive technologies in knee arthroplasty: fashion or evolution? Rate of publications and national registries prove the Scott Parabola wrong.

Authors:  Cécile Batailler; Sébastien Parratte
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-07-14       Impact factor: 3.067

3.  A Surgeon That Switched to Unrestricted Kinematic Alignment with Manual Instruments Has a Short Learning Curve and Comparable Resection Accuracy and Outcomes to Those of an Experienced Surgeon.

Authors:  Alexander J Nedopil; Anand Dhaliwal; Stephen M Howell; Maury L Hull
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-07-16

4.  Arithmetic hip-knee-ankle angle and stressed hip-knee-ankle angle: equivalent methods for estimating constitutional lower limb alignment in kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Payam Tarassoli; Jil A Wood; Darren B Chen; Will Griffiths-Jones; Johan Bellemans; Samuel J MacDessi
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2022-07-11       Impact factor: 4.114

5.  Pros and cons of navigated versus conventional total knee arthroplasty-a retrospective analysis of over 2400 patients.

Authors:  Matthias Meyer; Tobias Renkawitz; Florian Völlner; Achim Benditz; Joachim Grifka; Markus Weber
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-02-23       Impact factor: 3.067

6.  An insert with less than spherical medial conformity causes a loss of passive internal rotation after calipered kinematically aligned TKA.

Authors:  Alexander J Nedopil; Adithya Shekhar; Stephen M Howell; Maury L Hull
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-07-15       Impact factor: 3.067

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.