Computer-assisted knee arthroplasty versus a conventional jig-based technique

To evaluate the ability of computer-assisted surgery (CAS) to accurately size and determine rotational alignment of the femoral component in TKA, the author reviewed femoral component position after 50 consecutive primary TKAs using a femur-first, measured resection workflow. The computer software used allowed femoral rotation to be selected based on epicondylar axis, posterior condylar axis, or anteroposterior axis. The final femoral component size and position was determined by the surgeon to avoid anterior notching, match the posterior-medial condyle resection, and flexed to match the plane of the anterior femoral cortex. Femoral sizing was confirmed intraoperatively with a standard sizing guide. The femoral component was downsized in 52% of patients from the size recommended by the computer software. The posterior condylar axis matched the implanted rotational position of the femoral component to within 1°in 64% of patients in contrast to the epicondylar axis (32%) and anteroposterior axis (26%). CAS provides information to make surgical decisions but does not replace clinical judgment. Landmark referencing may be compromised by limited surgical exposures leading to variation in implant positioning by computer software. A clear understanding of the principles of TKA is critical when using CAS to optimize implant sizing and position.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Determining Femoral Component Position Using CAS and Measured Resection

Benjamin

2008

“…Although computer-assisted navigation has been used in craniofacial surgery, joint arthroplasty, trauma, and spine surgery [1,4,7,8] for some time, its application in orthopaedic bone tumor surgery is more recent [2,3,5,6,9]. To date, there is no software designed specifically for surgery on long bone and pelvic tumors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computer-assisted Navigation in Bone Tumor Surgery: Seamless Workflow Model and Evolution of Technique

Ying-Lee

Mak

2010

Background Computer-assisted navigation was recently introduced to aid the resection of musculoskeletal tumors. However, it has not always been possible to directly navigate the osteotomy with real-time manipulation of available surgical tools. Registration techniques vary, although most existing systems use some form of surface matching. Questions/purposes We developed and evaluated a workflow model of computer-assisted bone tumor surgery and evaluated (1) the applicability of currently available software to different bones; (2) the accuracy of the navigated excision; and (3) the accuracy of a new registration technique of fluoro-CT matching. Methods Our workflow involved detailed preoperative planning with CT-MRI image fusion, three-dimensional mapping of the tumor, and planning of the resection plane. Using the workflow model, we reviewed 15 navigation procedures in 12 patients, including four with joint-saving resections and three with custom implant reconstructions. Intraoperatively, registration was performed with either paired points and surface matching (Group 1, n = 10) or a new technique of fluoro-CT image matching (Group 2, n = 5). All osteotomies were performed under direct computer navigation. Postoperatively, each case was evaluated for histologic margin and gross measurement of the achieved surgical margin. Results The margins were free from tumor in all resected specimens. In the Group 1 procedures, the correlation between preoperative planned margins and actual achieved margins was 0.631, whereas in Group 2 procedures (fluoro-CT matching), the correlation was 0.985. Conclusions Our findings suggest computer-assisted navigation is accurate and useful for bone tumor surgery. The new registration technique using fluoro-CT matching may allow more accurate resection of margins.

“…However, some authors agree this objective may not be practically obtainable in every TKA [15]. Satisfactory position of a TKA prosthesis is commonly accepted to be an alignment within 3°from this ideal [1,6,7,12,17,18,22,23,28,33]. Aseptic loosening of the prosthesis has been reported to be more common in knees implanted in an alignment greater than 3°varus [26].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computer Navigation Did Not Improve Alignment in a Lower-volume Total Knee Practice

Yau

Chiu

Zuo

et al. 2008

Postoperative alignment of the implanted prosthesis in computer-navigated TKA has been reported to be superior to that using the conventional technique. There is an assumption that use of computer navigation techniques can make an inexperienced or occasional TKA surgeon perform more like an expert TKA surgeon. To assess improved accuracy in recreation of mechanical alignment in TKA performed using computer navigation, a retrospective review of the experience of one of the authors (WPY) before and after using computer navigation was performed. We reviewed the radiographic results of 104 TKAs (52 computer navigation, 52 conventional technique) and found the accuracy of postoperative radiographic alignment of the implanted prosthesis was not improved by using computer navigation as judged by (1) overall limb alignment (case: varus 1.3°; control: varus 0.3°); (2) femoral component alignment (case: 90.3°; control: 90.3°); and (3) tibial component alignment (case: 89°; control: 90°). Significant factors that affected postoperative overall mechanical alignment in the current navigation series included severity of the preoperative deformity, amount of error in making bone cuts, and experience of the surgeon in using the computer navigation system. Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.