medigraphic.com
ISSN 2992-8036 (Electronic)
ISSN 2306-4102 (Print)
Órgano Oficial del Colegio Mexicano de Ortopedia y Traumatología

2014, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Acta Ortop Mex 2014; 28 (2)

Individualized molds for alignment of primary knee arthroplasty

Sanz-Ruiz P, Matas-Diez JA, Pérez-Martin A, Vaquero-Martín J

Language: Spanish
References: 17
Page: 100-105
PDF size: 304.91 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Patient-specific cutting blocks (PSCB) have been proposed as an interesting option to achieve appropriate alignment in knee arthroplasty. However, there is no information as to which of the available planning methods is the right one. Material and methods: A prospective study was designed to compare two PSCB systems using different planning methods (Signature with CAT scan + teleradiography; Visionaire with MRI) with the standard alignment method. Radiographic and functional pre- and postoperative parameters were analyzed, together with hospital stay, blood transfusion needs, operative time and associated complications. Results: A total of 10 patients per group were operated on. No statistically significant differences were observed between both of the patient-specific alignment systems and the standard system (p › 0.05). However, greater precision was achieved with the former systems and the Signature system was slightly more accurate. Operative time was shorter in patients in whom PSCBs were used, and it was still slightly shorter in those in whom the Visionaire system was used (p › 0.05). Conclusions: The new PSCB systems may be useful to improve alignment in knee arthroplasty and reduce the operative time. While larger case series confirming these data become available, the authors recommend using these systems in cases in which the standard systems do not work properly.


REFERENCES

  1. Fang DM, Ritter MA, Davis KE. Coronal alignment in total knee arthroplasty: just how important is it? J Arthroplasty. 2009; 24: 39-43.

  2. Green GV, Berend KR, Berend ME, Glisson RR, Vail TP. The effects of varus tibial alignment on proximal tibial surface strain in total knee arthroplasty: the posteromedial hot spot. J Arthroplasty. 2002; 17: 1033-9.

  3. Jeffery RS, Morris RW, Denham RA. Coronal alignment after total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991; 73: 709-14.

  4. Ritter MA, Faris PM, Keating EM, Meding JB. Postoperative align­ment of total knee replacement. Its effect on survival. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994: 153-6.

  5. Lustig S, Scholes CJ, Oussedik SI, Kinzel V, Coolican MR, Parker DA. Unsatisfactory accuracy as determined by computer navigation of Visionaire patient-specific instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013; 28: 469-73.

  6. Ahlbäck S. Osteoarthrosis of the knee. A radiographic investigation. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh). 1968: Suppl 277: 7-72.

  7. Ewald FC. The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989: 9-12.

  8. Berend ME, Ritter MA, Meding JB, et al. Tibial component failure mechanisms in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004: 26-34.

  9. Ritter MA, Davis KE, Meding JB, Pierson JL, Berend ME, Malinzak RA. The effect of alignment and BMI on failure of total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93: 1588-96.

  10. Cates HE, Ritter MA, Keating EM, Faris PM. Intramedullary versus extramedullary femoral alignment systems in total knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993: 32-9.

  11. Mason JB, Fehring TK, Estok R, Banel D, Fahrbach K. Meta-analysis of alignment outcomes in computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty surgery. J Arthroplasty. 2007; 22: 1097-106.

  12. Chauhan SK, Scott RG, Breidahl W, Beaver RJ. Computer-assisted knee arthroplasty versus a conventional jig-based technique. A randomised, prospective trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004; 86: 372-7.

  13. Saragaglia D, Picard F, Chaussard C, Montbarbon E, Leitner F, Cinquin P. [Computer-assisted knee arthroplasty: comparison with a conventional procedure. Results of 50 cases in a prospective randomized study]. Revue de chirurgie orthopedique et reparatrice de l’appareil moteur. 2001; 87: 18-28.

  14. Bonutti PM, Dethmers D, Ulrich SD, Seyler TM, Mont MA. Computer navigation-assisted versus minimally invasive TKA: benefits and drawbacks. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008; 466: 2756-62.

  15. Noble JW, Jr., Moore CA, Liu N. The value of patient-matched instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012; 27: 153-5.

  16. Spencer BA, Mont MA, McGrath MS, Boyd B, Mitrick MF. Initial experience with custom-fit total knee replacement: intra-operative events and long-leg coronal alignment. Int Orthop. 2009; 33(6): 1571-5.

  17. Tibesku CO, Hofer P, Portegies W, Ruys CJ, Fennema P. Benefits of using customized instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: results from an activity-based costing model. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013; 133: 405-11.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com