eISSN: 1896-9151
ISSN: 1734-1922
Archives of Medical Science
Current issue Archive Manuscripts accepted About the journal Special issues Editorial board Abstracting and indexing Subscription Contact Instructions for authors
SCImago Journal & Country Rank
6/2018
vol. 14
 
Share:
Share:
more
 
 
abstract:
Clinical research

Evaluation of implant fit and frontal plane alignment after bi-compartmental knee arthroplasty using patient-specific instruments and implants

Joerg Arnholdt, Yama Kamawal, Boris Michael Holzapfel, Axel Ripp, Maximillian Rudert, Andre Friedrich Steinert

Arch Med Sci 2018; 14, 6: 1424–1431
Online publish date: 2018/10/23
View full text
Get citation
ENW
EndNote
BIB
JabRef, Mendeley
RIS
Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero
AMA
APA
Chicago
Harvard
MLA
Vancouver
 
Introduction
The goals of successful bi-compartmental knee arthroplasty are to achieve correct fit and positioning of the implant, while appropriately correcting the mechanical alignment of the leg after surgery. As these requirements are not always reliably fulfilled using off-the-shelf implant systems, newer approaches for bi-compartmental resurfacing have been explored.

Material and methods
In this article we report the radiographic results of 30 patients with anteromedial osteoarthritis (OA) who were treated with a novel patient-specific fixed-bearing bi-compartmental knee resurfacing system using custom-made implants and instruments. Utilizing standardized pre- and postoperative radiographic analyses (based on anterior-posterior and lateral, anterior-posterior weight-bearing full-length radiographs, patella skyline views and preoperative computed tomography (CT) scanning) implant fit and positioning as well as correction of the mechanical axis (hip-knee-ankle angle, HKA) were determined.

Results
On average, HKA was corrected from 173.4 ±3.47° preoperatively to 179.4 ±2.85° postoperatively. The coronal femoro-tibial angle was corrected on average 5.61°. The preoperative tibial slope measured on lateral views was 6.38 ±2.4°, while the average slope in the CT-based planning protocol (iView) was 6.14 ±2.40°. Postoperative lateral tibial slope was determined to be 5.77 ±1.97°. The thickness of the posterior femoral cuts was measured intraoperatively and, in all cases, corresponded well to the targeted thickness of the cuts provided by the iView. The joint line was preserved in all cases and the average Insall-Salvati index was 1.078 ±0.11 pre- and 1.072 ±0.11 postoperatively. The fit of the implant components measured by over- or underhang was excellent throughout (< 1.01 mm).

Conclusions
Custom-made bicompartmental knee arthroplasty can ensure optimized fitting and positioning of the implant with restoration of the leg axis. These implants could be considered as an alternative primary solution for knee surgeons treating bi-compartmental disease.

keywords:

bi-compartmental, knee arthroplasty, patient-specific, knee alignment, knee osteoarthritis, implant positioning

references:
Heekin RD, Fokin AA. Incidence of bicompartmental osteoarthritis in patients undergoing total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is the time ripe for a less radical treatment? J Knee Surg 2014; 27: 77-81.
Yamabe E, Ueno T, Miyagi R, Watanabe A, Guenzi C, Yoshioka H. Study of surgical indication for knee arthroplasty by cartilage analysis in three compartments using data from Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI). BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2013; 14: 194.
Nam D, Nunley RM, Barrack RL. Patient dissatisfaction following total knee replacement: a growing concern? Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B (11 Suppl. A): 96-100.
Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM, Mahomed NN, Charron KD. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468: 57-63.
Von Keudell A, Sodha S, Collins J, Minas T, Fitz W, Go-moll AH. Patient satisfaction after primary total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: an age-dependent analysis. Knee 2014; 21: 180-4.
Isaac SM, Barker KL, Danial IN, Beard DJ, Dodd CA, Murray DW. Does arthroplasty type influence knee joint proprioception? A longitudinal prospective study comparing total and unicompartmental arthroplasty. Knee 2007; 14: 212-7.
Thienpont E, Schwab PE, Fennema P. A systematic review and meta-analysis of patient-specific instrumentation for improving alignment of the components in total knee replacement. Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B: 1052-61.
Tria AJ Jr. Bicompartmental knee arthroplasty: the clinical outcomes. Orthop Clin North Am 2013; 44: 281-6.
Müller M, Matziolis G, Falk R, Hommel H. [The bicompartmental knee joint prosthesis Journey Deuce: failure analysis and optimization strategies]. Orthopade 2012; 41: 894-904.
Steinert AF, Sefrin L, Hoberg M, Arnholdt J, Rudert M. [Individualized total knee arthroplasty]. Orthopade 2015; 44: 290-2, 4-301.
Steinert AF, Beckmann J, Holzapfel BM, Rudert M, Arnholdt J. Bicompartmental individualized knee replacement: use of patient-specific implants and instruments (iDuo). Oper Orthop Traumatol 2017; 29: 51-8.
Beckmann J, Steinert A, Zilkens C, et al. [Partial replacement of the knee joint with patient-specific instruments and implants (ConforMIS iUni, iDuo)]. Orthopade 2016; 45: 322-30.
Fitz W. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with use of novel patient-specific resurfacing implants and personalized jigs. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91 Suppl 1: 69-76.
Koeck FX, Beckmann J, Luring C, Rath B, Grifka J, Basad E. Evaluation of implant position and knee alignment after patient-specific unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee 2011; 18: 294-9.
Arnholdt J, Holzapfel BM, Sefrin L, Rudert M, Beckmann J, Steinert AF. [Individualized unicondylar knee replacement: use of patient-specific implants and instruments]. Oper Orthop Traumatol 2017; 29: 31-9.
Demange MK, Von Keudell A, Probst C, Yoshioka H, Gomoll AH. Patient-specific implants for lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 2015; 39: 1519-26.
Gudena R, Pilambaraei MA, Werle J, Shrive NG, Frank CB. A safe overhang limit for unicompartmental knee arthroplasties based on medial collateral ligament strains: an in vitro study. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28: 227-33.
Pfitzner T, Perka C, Matziolis G. [Patella height after total knee replacement: influence of the radiological setting]. Orthopade 2009; 38: 616-21.
Springorum HR, Baier C, Craiovan B, et al. [Patella navigation in computer-assisted TKA: intraoperative measurement of patellar kinematics. Video article]. Orthopade 2016; 45: 569-72.
Heesterbeek PJ, Beumers MP, Jacobs WC, Havinga ME, Wymenga AB. A comparison of reproducibility of measurement techniques for patella position on axial radiographs after total knee arthroplasty. Knee 2007; 14: 411-6.
Nemes S, Rolfson O, W-Dahl A, et al. Historical view and future demand for knee arthroplasty in Sweden. Acta Orthop 2015; 86: 426-31.
Fu H, Wang J, Zhou S, et al. No difference in mechanical alignment and femoral component placement between patient-specific instrumentation and conventional instrumentation in TKA. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2015; 23: 3288-95.
Emerson RH Jr, Higgins LL. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with the oxford prosthesis in patients with medial compartment arthritis. J Bone Joint Surgery Am 2008; 90: 118-22.
Kennedy WR, White RP. Unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee. Postoperative alignment and its influence on overall results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1987; 221: 278-85.
Ansari S, Newman JH, Ackroyd CE St. Georg sledge for medial compartment knee replacement. 461 arthroplasties followed for 4 (1-17) years. Acta Orthop Scand 1997; 68: 430-4.
Gulati A, Pandit H, Jenkins C, Chau R, Dodd CA, Murray DW. The effect of leg alignment on the outcome of unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surgery Br 2009; 91: 469-74.
Emerson RH Jr. Preoperative and postoperative limb alignment after Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2007; 30 (5 Suppl): 32-4.
Deshmukh RV, Scott RD. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: long-term results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; 392: 272-8.
Rolston L, Siewert K. Assessment of knee alignment after bicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2009; 24: 1111-4.
Sharma L, Song J, Felson DT, Cahue S, Shamiyeh E, Dunlop DD. The role of knee alignment in disease progression and functional decline in knee osteoarthritis. JAMA 2001; 286: 188-95.
Shah SM, Dutton AQ, Liang S, Dasde S. Bicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty for medio-patellofemoral osteoarthritis: a comparison of early clinical and functional outcomes. J Knee Surg 2013; 26: 411-6.
Morrison TA, Nyce JD, Macaulay WB, Geller JA. Early adverse results with bicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort comparison to total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26 (6 Suppl): 35-9.
Palumbo BT, Henderson ER, Edwards PK, Burris RB, Gutierrez S, Raterman SJ. Initial experience of the Journey-Deuce bicompartmental knee prosthesis: a review of 36 cases. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26 (6 Suppl): 40-5.
Carpenter DP, Holmberg RR, Quartulli MJ, Barnes CL. Tibial plateau coverage in UKA: a comparison of patient specific and off-the-shelf implants. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 1694-8.
Fitzpatrick C, FitzPatrick D, Lee J, Auger D. Statistical design of unicompartmental tibial implants and comparison with current devices. Knee 2007; 14: 138-44.
Servien E, Saffarini M, Lustig S, Chomel S, Neyret P. Lateral versus medial tibial plateau: morphometric analysis and adaptability with current tibial component design. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2008; 16: 1141-5.
Hernigou P, Deschamps G. Posterior slope of the tibial implant and the outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86-A: 506-11.
FEATURED PRODUCTS
Quick links
© 2018 Termedia Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.
Developed by Bentus.
PayU - płatności internetowe