Comparison of Femoral Component Rotation between Robotic-Assisted vs. Soft-Tissue Tensor Total Knee Arthroplasty with Anatomic Implants.

Background and Objectives: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is the most effective treatment method for end-stage osteoarthritis. One of the most important aspects of this surgery is adequate implant positioning, as it guarantees the desired outcome of restoring limb biomechanics. Surgical technique is being continuously improved along with hardware development. There are two novel devices designed to help establish proper femoral component rotation: soft-tissue tensor and robotic-assisted TKA (RATKA). This study compared the femoral component rotation achieved with the use of three methods: RATKA, soft tissue tensioner and the conventional measured-resection technique, all of them utilizing anatomical design prosthesis components. Materials and Methods: A total of 139 patients diagnosed with end-stage osteoarthritis underwent total knee arthroplasty between December 2020 and June 2021. After the surgery, they were divided into three groups depending on procedure technique and implant type: Persona (Zimmer Biomet) + Fuzion Balancer, RATKA + Journey II BCS or conventional TKA + Persona/Journey. Postoperatively, a computed tomography examination was performed in order to measure femoral component rotation. All three groups were compared independently during statistical analysis. Fisher's exact, Kruskal-Wallis and Dwass-Steel-Crichtlow-Fligner tests were used for particular calculations. Results: Statistically significant differences in femoral component rotation between groups were noticed. However, in terms of values other than 0° in external rotation, no significant variance was revealed. Conclusions: Additional total knee arthroplasty instruments seem to improve the outcomes of the surgery, providing better component positioning than in the conventional measured-resection technique based only on bone landmarks.

Curve-on-curve technique does not improve tibial coverage in total knee arthroplasty in comparison to tibial tuberosity technique with use of anatomical implants: randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: During the last years, main attention while performing total knee replacement was paid to femoral component alignment; however, there is still lack of studies concerning tibial baseplate rotational alignment, especially in terms of anatomical designs of knee prosthesis. Some recent studies proved that tibial baseplate malrotation might be a cause of knee pain and patients' dissatisfaction. The aim of this study was to compare tibial component rotation and its coverage on the tibial plateau achieved with curve-on-curve and tibial tuberosity techniques (t-t technique) with use of anatomic knee designs with asymmetric tibial baseplate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 88 patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo total knee arthroplasty with use of the PERSONA PS (Zimmer Biomet) knee design with an asymmetric baseplate. The rotation of the tibial component was assessed and performed with two different techniques: curve-on-curve technique and tibial tuberosity technique. Tibial component rotation was measured on computed tomography (CT) scans using the method suggested by Benazzo et al. and designed for asymmetrical implants. For the measurement of the tibial bone coverage, the component surface area was outlined and measured on a proper CT section, then the tibial cut surface area was outlined and measured on a section just below the cement level. Pre- and post-operative range of motion was measured by another independent researcher 12 months post-operatively during follow-up visit. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference between both groups in median value of tibial rotation angle: 7° (interquartile range (IQR) = 0-12) in curve-on-curve technique group vs 2° (IQR-1-7) in tibial tuberosity technique group, probability value (p) = 0.0041, with values above 0 meaning external rotation of the component. There was no statistically significant difference between both groups in terms of range of motion (ROM) with average values of 124.3° ± 13.0° for curve-on-curve technique and 125.6° ± 12.8° for t-t technique with p = 0.45. There was a statistically insignificant difference between both groups in terms of coverage percentage in slight favor for curve-on-curve technique (85.9 ± 4.2 vs 84.5 ± 4.8, p = 0.17). CONCLUSION: In this study, no difference between the groups in terms of tibial bone coverage and range of motion was proved, even though both techniques differed significantly with values of tibial rotation. Future studies should be focused on influence of specific values of tibial rotation on patient-reported outcomes and survivorship of anatomic knee implants.

Continuous glycemia monitoring in perioperative period in patients undergoing total knee or hip arthroplasty: A protocol for a prospective observational study.

In every surgical subspecialty surgical site infection (SSI) or implant infections, although occur seldom, pose a threat to patients' health. Risk factors of such states is diabetes mellitus (DM), considered one of the most widespread health-related problems of the 21st century. Orthopedists perform big joint replacements that usually concern older adults and therefore often deal with patients suffering from comorbidities. DM is frequently one of them and can furthermore often remain underdiagnosed. The other risk for complication is a rapid beginning of the rehabilitation which starts on the day following the surgery. To eliminate the debilitating impact of DM and hypoglycemia on surgical patients, we aim to investigate the relationship between the glycemia values and the postoperative outcomes in certain periods of time in patients undergoing orthopedic surgeries. Participants meeting inclusion criteria will have inserted a glycemia measuring device (Dexcom G5, Inc., San Diego, CA) in the periods of time. First time it will take place 14 days prior to the surgery and right after the surgery for the second time for the period of another 14 days. All patients will undergo standard total knee arthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty procedures. Patients will be assessed preoperatively and 14 days, 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. The assessment of the joint condition will consist of: patient-reported outcomes (The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Harris Hip Score, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC]); assessment of potential SSI and cardiovascular complications (the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score [FINDRISC], the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation [SCORE]) and the clinical examination. To investigate the influence of orthopedic surgery (anesthesia) on glycemia and the significance and safety of early patients mobilization after the big joints surgeries. To investigate changes of glycemia in patients with normal glycemia metabolism, potentially protecting them from hypoglycemia during hospital stay and increasing their awareness of potential development of DM in the future. Additionally, this study will correlate perioperative glycemic levels with risk of cardiovascular events in one year follow-up, and its influence on SSI and implant complications.

Analysis of biomechanical gait parameters in patients after total hip replacement operated via anterolateral approach depending on size of the femoral head implant: retrospective matched-cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Total hip replacement (THR) is considered one of the most effective medical procedures in treatment of osteoarthritis. Since its introduction, there has been a worldwide debate over proper implant selection in terms of size, bearing type and shape. Following study was designed to assess the importance of femoral head size in long-term follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of 30 patients with primary end stage osteoarthritis who underwent total hip replacement was analysed retrospectively. A homogenous group was chosen with no major differences in BMI. Patients' gait parameters were measured in a biomechanics laboratory using the 3D BTS Smart system. WOMAC and VAS questionnaires were used to assess patient reported outcome. RESULTS: The subgroup with larger implant head size had several outcomes significantly superior to the subgroup with standard head size and non-inferior to healthy hips. Following variables were measured during this study: time of support phase, time of swing phase, double support time, walking hip extension angle. CONCLUSIONS: Use of larger sized femoral heads during THR gives better results in terms of gait pattern. Since restoring the gait pattern is one of the aspects of rehabilitation and returning to daily activities it seems to be an important observation.

The Direct Anterior Approach to Primary Total Hip Replacement: Radiological Analysis in Comparison to Other Approaches.

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is currently considered the most effective treatment for end-stage hip osteoarthritis (OA). The surgery can be performed via a number of different approaches, including direct anterior (DAA; Smith-Petersen; Hueter), anterolateral (ALA; Watson-Jones), direct lateral (LA; Bauer), posterior (PA; Kocher-Langenbeck), and posterolateral (PLA). There is still a dispute over the optimal technique. The aim of this systematic review was to assess how different surgical approaches toward a THA influence the prosthesis elements' positioning. We conducted a literature search of Scopus, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library. We evaluated studies in terms of the first author's name, country, publication year, type of surgical approach being compared to the direct anterior approach, any significant differences at baseline, sample size, and radiographic analysis. A subanalysis of each approach in comparison to the DAA revealed differences in terms of all analyzed implant positioning radiographic parameters. There is still an insufficient number of randomized controlled studies that include radiological analyses comparing THRs (total hip replacements) performed using DAA with other approaches. Implant placement is a crucial step during a THR and surgeons must be aware that the approach they use might impact their judgment on angles and spaces inside the joint and thus alter the implant positioning.