Low tibial baseplate migration 1 year after unrestricted kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty using a medial conforming implant design.

PURPOSE: Varus alignment of the tibial baseplate and limb > 3° might adversely affect baseplate fixation after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), especially for unrestricted kinematically aligned (KA) TKA which aligns a majority of baseplates in varus. The purposes of this study were to determine whether baseplate migration at 1 year (1) was significantly less than a stability limit of 0.5 mm, (2) increased over time, and (3) was related to varus alignment of the baseplate and limb after unrestricted KA TKA. METHODS: Thirty-five patients underwent unrestricted KA TKA using a fixed-bearing, cemented, medial conforming tibial insert with posterior cruciate ligament retention. Using model-based radiostereometric analysis, maximum total point motion (MTPM) (i.e., largest displacement on the baseplate) was computed at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively relative to the day of surgery. Baseplate and limb alignment were measured postoperatively on long-leg CT scanograms. RESULTS: At 1 year, mean MTPM of 0.35 mm was significantly less than the 0.5 mm stability limit (p = 0.0002). Mean MTPM did not increase from 6 weeks to 1 year (p = 0.3047). Notably, 89% (31/35) of tibial baseplates and 46% (16/35) of limbs were > 3° varus. Baseplate and limb alignment had no relationship to MTPM at 1 year (|r|≤ 0.173, p ≥ 0.3276). CONCLUSION: Low and non-progressive tibial baseplate migration 1 year after unrestricted KA TKA with a medial conforming design should allay any concern that unrestricted KA TKA increases risk of baseplate loosening due to varus alignment of the baseplate and limb. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic prospective cohort study.

Error in maximum total point motion of a tibial baseplate is lower with a reverse-engineered model versus a CAD model using model-based radiostereometric analysis.

Because model-based radiostereometric analysis (MBRSA) identifies tibial baseplate designs which increase risk of baseplate loosening, and because registration errors for computer-aided design (CAD) models are large relative to a 6-month stability limit, 3D models more representative of the geometry of implanted baseplates are needed to minimize error. This study tested whether (1) each of three reverse-engineered (RE) models of the same nominal size reduced registration error relative to the equivalent size CAD model, and (2) RE models of multiple sizes reduced registration error relative to CAD models of corresponding sizes. Registration error, quantified as mean artifactual maximum total point motion (aMTPM), was computed between double biplanar radiographs (i.e., two pairs of independent biplanar radiographs from the same day) for thirty-five patients. Double biplanar radiographs were analyzed four times for the most common baseplate size (i.e., size 5) using three RE models and the corresponding CAD model (1st hypothesis) and twice for all patients using one RE model and the equivalent size CAD model (2nd hypothesis). For all three size 5 RE models, mean aMTPM was less than that of the CAD model, though only one RE model reached statistical significance. For multiple size models, mean aMTPM was reduced by 24% when using RE models instead of CAD models, which could mean the difference between categorizing a baseplate as at-risk versus not at-risk relative to a 6-month stability limit. Since error reduction is related to geometry of specific baseplate designs, other baseplate designs should be evaluated using methods presented herein.

Maximum Total Point Motion of Five Points Versus All Points in Assessing Tibial Baseplate Stability.

Maximum total point motion (MTPM), the point on a baseplate that migrates the most, has been used to assess the risk of tibial baseplate loosening using radiostereometric analysis (RSA). Two methods for determining MTPM for model-based RSA are to use either five points distributed around the perimeter of the baseplate or to use all points on the three-dimensional model. The objectives were to quantify the mean difference in MTPM using five points versus all points, compute the percent error relative to the 6-month stability limit for groups of patients, and determine the dependency of differences in MTPM on baseplate size and shape. A dataset of 10,000 migration values was generated using the mean and standard deviation of migration in six-degrees-of-freedom at 6 months from an RSA study. The dataset was used to simulate the migration of three-dimensional models (two baseplate shapes and two baseplate sizes) and calculate the difference in MTPM using five virtual points versus all points and the percent error (i.e., the difference in MTPM/stability limit) relative to the 6-month stability limit. The difference in the MTPM was about 0.02 mm, or 4% relative to the 6-month stability limit, which is not clinically important. Furthermore, results were not affected by baseplate shape or size. Researchers can decide whether to use five points or all points when computing MTPM for model-based RSA. The authors recommend using five points to maintain consistency with marker-based RSA.

Reorienting the tibial baseplate improves the registration accuracy of model-based radiostereometric analysis.

Accuracy of model-based radiostereometric analysis (MBRSA) in calculating tibial baseplate migration depends on baseplate shape and orientation relative to the imaging planes. The primary objectives were to introduce a new method for determining the optimal baseplate orientation to minimize bias error during MBRSA and to demonstrate the clinical usefulness of the method using a knee positioning guide to repeatably orient the baseplate. A tibia phantom was rotated to achieve 24 different orientations with three pairs of radiographs acquired at each orientation. Radiographs were processed in MBRSA software and the mean maximum total point motion (MTPM), an indicator of bias error during model registration, was plotted as a function of the rotation angles to determine the optimal orientation and a range of acceptable orientations. The bias error decreased 85% between the reference orientation and the optimal orientation. An acceptable range of orientations was defined by a decrease in bias error more than 50%. Future researchers can use this method to determine the optimal orientation and a range of acceptable orientations for their specific baseplate to minimize bias error. Clinical usefulness was demonstrated by repeatedly imaging a knee model placed in a knee positioning guide (simulated clinical positioning) and demonstrating that the mean orientation ± one standard deviation fell within the acceptable range of orientations. Thus, use of a knee positioning guide was an effective tool for repeatable patient positioning and should be considered for future RSA studies to maintain consistent positioning during a longitudinal study.