TY - JOUR
T1 - Predicted osteotomy planes are accurate when using patient-specific instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty in cadavers: a descriptive analysis
AU - Kievit, A. J.
AU - Dobbe, J. G. G.
AU - Streekstra, G. J.
AU - Blankevoort, L.
AU - Schafroth, M. U.
PY - 2018
Y1 - 2018
N2 - Malalignment of implants is a major source of failure during total knee arthroplasty. To achieve more accurate 3D planning and execution of the osteotomy cuts during surgery, the Signature (Biomet, Warsaw) patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) was used to produce pin guides for the positioning of the osteotomy blocks by means of computer-aided manufacture based on CT scan images. The research question of this study is: what is the transfer accuracy of osteotomy planes predicted by the Signature PSI system for preoperative 3D planning and intraoperative block-guided pin placement to perform total knee arthroplasty procedures? The transfer accuracy achieved by using the Signature PSI system was evaluated by comparing the osteotomy planes predicted preoperatively with the osteotomy planes seen intraoperatively in human cadaveric legs. Outcomes were measured in terms of translational and rotational errors (varus, valgus, flexion, extension and axial rotation) for both tibia and femur osteotomies. Average translational errors between the osteotomy planes predicted using the Signature system and the actual osteotomy planes achieved was 0.8 mm (± 0.5 mm) for the tibia and 0.7 mm (± 4.0 mm) for the femur. Average rotational errors in relation to predicted and achieved osteotomy planes were 0.1° (± 1.2°) of varus and 0.4° (± 1.7°) of anterior slope (extension) for the tibia, and 2.8° (± 2.0°) of varus and 0.9° (± 2.7°) of flexion and 1.4° (± 2.2°) of external rotation for the femur. The similarity between osteotomy planes predicted using the Signature system and osteotomy planes actually achieved was excellent for the tibia although some discrepancies were seen for the femur. The use of 3D system techniques in TKA surgery can provide accurate intraoperative guidance, especially for patients with deformed bone, tailored to individual patients and ensure better placement of the implant
AB - Malalignment of implants is a major source of failure during total knee arthroplasty. To achieve more accurate 3D planning and execution of the osteotomy cuts during surgery, the Signature (Biomet, Warsaw) patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) was used to produce pin guides for the positioning of the osteotomy blocks by means of computer-aided manufacture based on CT scan images. The research question of this study is: what is the transfer accuracy of osteotomy planes predicted by the Signature PSI system for preoperative 3D planning and intraoperative block-guided pin placement to perform total knee arthroplasty procedures? The transfer accuracy achieved by using the Signature PSI system was evaluated by comparing the osteotomy planes predicted preoperatively with the osteotomy planes seen intraoperatively in human cadaveric legs. Outcomes were measured in terms of translational and rotational errors (varus, valgus, flexion, extension and axial rotation) for both tibia and femur osteotomies. Average translational errors between the osteotomy planes predicted using the Signature system and the actual osteotomy planes achieved was 0.8 mm (± 0.5 mm) for the tibia and 0.7 mm (± 4.0 mm) for the femur. Average rotational errors in relation to predicted and achieved osteotomy planes were 0.1° (± 1.2°) of varus and 0.4° (± 1.7°) of anterior slope (extension) for the tibia, and 2.8° (± 2.0°) of varus and 0.9° (± 2.7°) of flexion and 1.4° (± 2.2°) of external rotation for the femur. The similarity between osteotomy planes predicted using the Signature system and osteotomy planes actually achieved was excellent for the tibia although some discrepancies were seen for the femur. The use of 3D system techniques in TKA surgery can provide accurate intraoperative guidance, especially for patients with deformed bone, tailored to individual patients and ensure better placement of the implant
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4721-5
DO - https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4721-5
M3 - Article
C2 - 28948339
SN - 0942-2056
VL - 26
SP - 1751
EP - 1758
JO - Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy
JF - Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy
IS - 6
ER -