KingMark’s dual-marker versus a conventional single-marker templating system: is there a difference in accuracy of predicting final implant sizes and leg lengths?

Al-Ashqar, Mohammad; Aslam, Nayef; Azhar, Muhammad Saad; Grayston, James; Hahnel, James

doi:10.1007/s00590-021-03174-y

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The KingMark device is a double calibration device, which uses markers placed anteriorly and posteriorly to the pelvis [ 10 ]. KingMark templating has been shown to improve the accuracy in predicting components in THR surgery compared to a single marker template [ 11 , 12 ]. However, based on our study findings, there was no significant difference in accuracy when using the KingMark template compared to the use of no templating marker.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Accuracy of Digital Preoperative Templating in Primary Total Hip Replacements

Girgis,

Kohli,

Kouklidis

et al. 2023

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDigital templating is an essential part of preoperative planning in elective total hip replacement (THR) surgery. The goals of templating are to predict femoral and acetabular implant sizes, to assess leg length, offset, and implant positioning. Templating markers such as the KingMark device (Brainlab, Munich, Germany) have been developed to improve the accuracy. Although templating is commonly used in many centres, there are challenges related to the accuracy of the process, such as true magnification ideal positioning of the pelvis and hips/body habit (obesity). ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of preoperative templating in THR patients, and to assess the difference between templating performed with and without the KingMark device. MethodsOur retrospective study included 642 consecutive patients who had primary THR at the Royal Bournemouth Hospital in the UK. Four hundred fifty-three (71%) of patients had the KingMark device on their templated radiographs. Patients who had hybrid total hip replacements using an uncemented acetabular component and cemented femoral component were included in the study. Digital templating was done using TraumaCad software (Brainlab). Analysis of the accuracy of predicting component size has been evaluated by comparing preoperative planned sizes with implanted sizes as documented by the surgeons and labels attached to the operative note. ResultsThe templated size corresponded to the actual femoral implant used in approximately 65.2% of cases. When femoral prostheses within one size above or below the templated size were included,the accuracy of preoperative templating rose to 97.2%. Regarding the uncemented acetabular component, the templated size corresponded to the actual acetabular implant used in 46.3% of cases. When acetabular cup within one size above or below the templated size were included, the accuracy of preoperative templating rose to 87.5%. Similarly, there was minimal difference between the predicted templated sizes using the KingMark device compared to templating performed without it. ConclusionsPreoperative templating is an essential part in optimizing the outcome of THRs. Templating allows the surgeon to estimate the size of the components to be used. It also provides a starting point, from which the surgeon can proceed from, and saves valuable intraoperative time by assessing the level of the femoral neck osteotomy and the degree of lateral rasping. Multiple factors affect the accuracy of preoperative templating including the patient BMI, external rotation of the hip and surgeon's experience. Although there are different methods of templating, digital templating with 2D radiographs is likely the most cost-effective and efficient process available at this time.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Accuracy of Digital Preoperative Templating in Primary Total Hip Replacements

Girgis,

Kohli,

Kouklidis

et al. 2023

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The vast majority of the existing literature on planning and calibration addresses hip replacements. For instance the KingMark system has been found to be significantly better than a single marker with regard to determining the size of the acetabulum [14], although this superiority was not confirmed in the study by Warschawski et al [15]. Overall, preoperative planning for hip replacements shows relatively reliable results, with correct predictions of the actual implant size in up to 90% of the shafts and 85% of the balls [16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Die überwiegende Mehrheit der zum Thema Planung und Kalibration vorhandenen Literatur befasst sich mit der Hüftendoprothetik. So konnte eine signifikante Überlegenheit des KingMark-Systems gegenüber einem singulären Marker hinsichtlich der Bestimmung der Pfannengröße nachgewiesen werden [14], während diese Überlegenheit in der Studie von Warschawski et al nicht bestätigt werden konnte [15]. Insgesamt zeigt die präoperative Planung bei Hüftendoprothesen relativ zuverlässige Ergebnisse, mit korrekten Vorhersagen der tatsächlichen Implantatgrößen in bis zu 90% der Schäfte und 85% der Pfannen [16].…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Die Zuverlässigkeit der präoperativen Knietotalendoprothesenplanung - ein Vergleich zweier Kalibrierungsmarker

Grevenstein

Oppermann

Spies³

et al. 2022

Z Orthop Unfall

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Zusammenfassung Hintergrund Die präoperative Prothesenplanung ist der Goldstandard bei der Implantation einer elektiven Knietotalendoprothese. In dieser Studie führen wir eine retrospektive Analyse zweier verschiedener Kalibrationsmarker durch. Methoden Die präoperative Implantatplanung mittels MediCad wurde in 231 Fällen durchgeführt. Wir verglichen in 2 Gruppen die Treffsicherheit einer Kalibration mittels Kugelmarker gegen eine mithilfe des KingMark-Systems durchgeführte Kalibrierung, indem die präoperativ geplanten Größen mit den tatsächlich implantierten Größen verglichen wurden. Resultate Insgesamt zeigte sich in 60,4% (n = 140) der Fälle kein kombiniertes femorotibiales Match, sprich mindestens eines der geplanten Implantate wich in seiner Größe von der Planung ab. In 39,4% (n = 91) zeigte sich eine treffende Vorhersage der Implantatgrößen in der Messung sowohl femoral als auch tibial. Gruppe 1 zeigte eine statistisch signifikant bessere Vorhersage der Implantatgröße für das kombinierte femorotibiale Match der Implantatgrößen sowie für die femorale Größe allein. Schlussfolgerung Auf Basis unserer Studie sollte das KingMark-Kalibrierungssystem gegenüber standardisierten Kugelmarkern bevorzugt werden. Insgesamt liefern beide Systeme jedoch keine zufriedenstellende Vorhersage der tatsächlichen Prothesengröße.

show abstract

KingMark’s dual-marker versus a conventional single-marker templating system: is there a difference in accuracy of predicting final implant sizes and leg lengths?

Cited by 2 publications

References 31 publications

The Accuracy of Digital Preoperative Templating in Primary Total Hip Replacements

The Accuracy of Digital Preoperative Templating in Primary Total Hip Replacements

Die Zuverlässigkeit der präoperativen Knietotalendoprothesenplanung - ein Vergleich zweier Kalibrierungsmarker

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About