Literature DB >> 32190572

Implant placement accuracy in total knee arthroplasty: validation of a CT-based measurement technique.

Valentina Campanelli1, Rocio Lozano1, Hosna Akhlaghpour1, Abheetinder S Brar1, David Maislin2,3, Alexander J Nedopil4, Joel Zuhars1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The primary goal of many computer-assisted surgical systems like robotics for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is to accurately execute a preoperative plan. To assess whether the preoperative plan was executed accurately in 3D, one option is to compare the planned and postoperative implant placement using a preoperative and postoperative CT scan of the patient's limb. This comparison requires a 3D-to-3D surface registration between the preoperative and postoperative 3D bone models and between the planned and postoperative 3D implants. Hence, the present study aimed at validating this measurement technique by determining (I) the anatomical regions that result in the lowest 6-degree of freedom (DoF) errors for 3D-to-3D surface registration of bone models, (II) the 6-DoF errors for 3D-to-3D surface registration of the implant models, and (III) the 6-DoF of the complete measurement technique.
METHODS: Four different regions of the femur were tested to determine which one would result in the most accurate 3D-to-3D registration of the bone models using 12 cadaveric lower limb specimens. Next, total knee arthroplasties were performed on six specimens, and the accuracy of the 3D-to-3D implant registration was evaluated against a gold standard registration performed using fiducial markers.
RESULTS: The most accurate 3D-to-3D bone registration was obtained when using the largest anatomical regions available after TKA, being the full 3D femur model or the femur model without the distal femur which resulted in root mean square errors within 0.2 mm for translations and 0.2° for rotation. The accuracy of the 3D-to-3D femoral and tibial implant registration was within 0.7 mm for translations and 0.4°-0.6° for rotations, respectively. The accuracy for the overall procedure was within 0.9 mm and 0.6° for both femur and tibia when using femoral regions resulting in accurate 3D-to-3D bone registration.
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, this measurement technique can be used in applications where measurement errors up to 0.9 mm in translations and up to 0.6° in rotations in component placement are acceptable. 2020 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Active robotics; implant placement accuracy; knee; total knee arthroplasty (TKA); validation

Year:  2020        PMID: 32190572      PMCID: PMC7063276          DOI: 10.21037/qims.2020.01.02

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg        ISSN: 2223-4306


  17 in total

1.  Quantification of the difference between 3D CT and plain radiograph for measurement of the position of medial unicompartmental knee replacements.

Authors:  T J Holme; J Henckel; J Cobb; A J Hart
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2010-10-05       Impact factor: 2.199

2.  Randomized control trial comparing radiographic total knee arthroplasty implant placement using computer navigation versus conventional technique.

Authors:  Pak Lin Chin; Kuang Ying Yang; Seng Jin Yeo; Ngai Nung Lo
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 4.757

3.  Pitfalls in determining knee alignment: a radiographic cadaver study.

Authors:  R W Brouwer; T S C Jakma; K H Brouwer; J A N Verhaar
Journal:  J Knee Surg       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 2.757

4.  What are the six degree-of-freedom errors of a robotically-machined femoral cavity in total hip arthroplasty and are they clinically important? An in-vitro study.

Authors:  Chih Ming Hsieh; Stephen M Howell; Maury L Hull
Journal:  Med Eng Phys       Date:  2017-07-26       Impact factor: 2.242

5.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is robotic technology more accurate than conventional technique?

Authors:  Mustafa Citak; Eduardo M Suero; Musa Citak; Nicholas J Dunbar; Sharon H Branch; Michael A Conditt; Scott A Banks; Andrew D Pearle
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2012-11-30       Impact factor: 2.199

6.  Accuracy evaluation of a lower-cost and four higher-cost laser scanners.

Authors:  Valentina Campanelli; Stephen M Howell; Maury L Hull
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2015-11-30       Impact factor: 2.712

7.  Robotic versus conventional primary total knee arthroplasty: clinical and radiological long-term results with a minimum follow-up of ten years.

Authors:  Kyu-Jin Cho; Jong-Keun Seon; Won-Young Jang; Chun-Gon Park; Eun-Kyoo Song
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-11-19       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  Frontal plane alignment after total knee arthroplasty using patient-specific instruments.

Authors:  Kiriakos Daniilidis; Carsten O Tibesku
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-12-12       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  Patient-specific instrumentation in Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is reliable and accurate except for the tibial rotation.

Authors:  B Kerens; A M Leenders; M G M Schotanus; B Boonen; W E Tuinebreijer; P J Emans; B Jong; N P Kort
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-12-27       Impact factor: 4.342

10.  Does accurate anatomical alignment result in better function and quality of life? Comparing conventional and computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Peter F Choong; Michelle M Dowsey; James D Stoney
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2008-05-19       Impact factor: 4.757

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Active robotic technologies for total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Bernard N Stulberg; Jayson D Zadzilka
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-07-14       Impact factor: 3.067

2.  Safe and effective use of active robotics for TKA: Early results of a multicenter study.

Authors:  Bernard N Stulberg; Jayson D Zadzilka; Stefan Kreuzer; Yair D Kissin; Ralph Liebelt; William J Long; Valentina Campanelli
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2021-07-23

3.  Non-weight-bearing short knee radiographs to evaluate coronal alignment before total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Sheng Pan; Chaoran Huang; Xingchen Zhang; Ruxin Ruan; Ziwen Yan; Zheng Li; Yong Pang; Kaijin Guo; Xin Zheng
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2022-02
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.