Computer-assisted revision total knee arthroplasty does not improve postoperative knee prosthesis alignment compared to the conventional technique.

Purpose: Computer-assisted surgery (CAS) during primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) prosthesis alignment. However, literature on its use during revision TKA (rTKA) is scarce. Moreover, the effect of CAS during rTKA on rotational alignment of the prosthesis has not been described yet. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of CAS during rTKA, focusing on the number of outliers and coronal, sagittal and rotational prosthetic alignment compared to conventional rTKA. Methods: A prospective cohort study comparing CAS-rTKA with a historical control group (CON-rTKA). The CAS-rTKA group (54 patients/62 knees) underwent rTKA using imageless CAS between 2012 and 2017. The CON-rTKA group (13 patients/23 knees) was operated using the conventional technique between 2002 and 2012. Postoperative alignment was measured using the EOS-2D/3D system (coronal and sagittal planes) and computed tomography scan (rotation). Results: No significant differences between the CAS-rTKA and CON-rTKA groups were found for coronal and sagittal alignment regarding the mechanical angle of the leg (p = 0.08), mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (p = 0.87), mechanical medial proximal tibial angle (p = 0.40), anatomical proximal posterior tibial angle (p = 0.43) nor femoral (p = 0.80) and tibial rotation (p = 0.15). For the proportions of coronal, sagittal and rotational outliers, no significant differences were found either. Conclusion: This study showed no evidence that use of CAS during rTKA leads to improved coronal, sagittal or rotational alignment of knee prostheses or a difference of outliers between the groups. Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic.

Do CAS measurements correlate with EOS 3D alignment measurements in primary TKA?

PURPOSE: Objective of this study was to compare intraoperative computer-assisted surgery (CAS) alignment measurements during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with pre- and postoperative coronal alignment measurements using EOS 3D reconstructions. METHODS: In a prospective study, 56 TKAs using imageless CAS were performed and coronal alignment measurements were recorded twice: before bone cuts were made and after implantation of the prosthesis. Pre- and postoperative coronal alignment measurements were performed using EOS 3D reconstructions. Thanks to the EOS radiostereography system, measurement errors due to malpositioning and deformity during acquisition are eliminated. CAS measurements were compared with EOS 3D reconstructions. Varus/valgus angle (VV), mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA) and mechanical medial proximal tibial angle (mMPTA) were measured. RESULTS: Significantly different VV angles were measured pre- and postoperatively with CAS compared to EOS. For preoperative measurements, mLDFA did not differ significantly, but a significantly larger mMPTA in valgus was measured with CAS. CONCLUSION: Results of this study indicate that differences in alignment measurements between CAS measurements and pre- and postoperative EOS 3D are due mainly to the difference between weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing position and potential errors in validity and reliability of the CAS system. EOS 3D measurements overestimate VV angle in lower limbs with substantial mechanical axis deviation. For lower limbs with minor mechanical axis deviation as well as for mMPTA measurements, CAS measures more valgus than EOS. Eventually the results of this study are of clinical relevance, since it raises concerns regarding the validity and reliability of CAS systems in TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IIb.

Tibial component with and without stem extension in a trabecular metal cone construct.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate stability and strain distribution of a tibial plateau reconstruction with a trabecular metal cone while the tibial component is implanted with and without a stem, and whether prosthetic stability was influenced by bone mineral density. Trabecular metal cones are designed to fill up major bone defects in total knee arthroplasty. Tibial components can be implanted in combination with a stem, but it is unclear whether this is necessary after reconstruction with a trabecular metal cone. Implanting a stem can give extra stability, but may have negative side effects. METHODS: Tibial revision arthroplasties with trabecular metal cones were performed after reconstruction of a 2B bone defect according to the Anderson Orthopedic Research Institute classification. Components were implanted in seven pairs of cadaveric tibiae; one tibia of each pair was implanted with stem and the other without. All specimens were loaded to one bodyweight alternating between the medial and lateral tibial component. Implant-bone micro-motions, bone strains, bone mineral density and correlations were measured and/or calculated. RESULTS: Tibial components without a stem showed only more varus tilt [difference in median 0.14° (P < 0.05)], but this was not considered clinically relevant. Strain distribution did not differ. Bone mineral density only had an effect on the anterior/posterior tilt [ρ: -0.72 (P < 0.01)]. CONCLUSION: Tibial components, with or without a stem, which are implanted after reconstruction of major bone defects using trabecular metal cones produce very similar biomechanical conditions in terms of stability and strain distribution. If in vivo studies confirm that a stem extension is not mandatory, orthopaedic surgeons can decide not to implant a stem. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

The Validity of a New Low-Dose Stereoradiography System to Perform 2D and 3D Knee Prosthetic Alignment Measurements.

INTRODUCTION: The EOS stereoradiography system has shown to provide reliable varus/valgus (VV) measurements of the lower limb in 2D (VV2D) and 3D (VV3D) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Validity of these measurements has not been investigated yet, therefore the purpose of this study was to determine validity of EOS VV2D and VV3D. METHODS: EOS images were made of a lower limb phantom containing a knee prosthesis, while varying VV angle from 15° varus to 15° valgus and flexion angle from 0° to 20°, and changing rotation from 20° internal to 20° external rotation. Differences between the actual VV position of the lower limb phantom and its position as measured on EOS 2D and 3D images were investigated. RESULTS: Rotation, flexion or VV angle alone had no major impact on VV2D or VV3D. Combination of VV angle and rotation with full extension did not show major differences in VV2D measurements either. Combination of flexion and rotation with a neutral VV angle showed variation of up to 7.4° for VV2D; maximum variation for VV3D was only 1.5°. A combination of the three variables showed an even greater distortion of VV2D, while VV3D stayed relatively constant. Maximum measurement difference between preset VV angle and VV2D was 9.8°, while the difference with VV3D was only 1.9°. The largest differences between the preset VV angle and VV2D were found when installing the leg in extreme angles, for example 15° valgus, 20° flexion and 20° internal rotation. CONCLUSIONS: After TKA, EOS VV3D were more valid than VV2D, indicating that 3D measurements compensate for malpositioning during acquisition. Caution is warranted when measuring VV angle on a conventional radiograph of a knee with a flexion contracture, varus or valgus angle and/or rotation of the knee joint during acquisition.

Assessment of prosthesis alignment after revision total knee arthroplasty using EOS 2D and 3D imaging: a reliability study.

INTRODUCTION: A new low-dose X-ray device, called EOS, has been introduced for determining lower-limb alignment in 2D and 3D. Reliability has not yet been assessed when using EOS on lower limbs containing a knee prosthesis. Therefore purpose of this study was to determine intraobserver and interobserver reliability of EOS 2D and 3D knee prosthesis alignment measurements after revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). METHODS: Forty anteroposterior and lateral images of 37 rTKA patients were included. Two observers independently performed measurements on these images twice. Varus/valgus angles were measured in 2D (VV2D) and 3D (VV3D). Intraclass correlation coefficients and the Bland and Altman method were used to determine reliability. T-tests were used to test potential differences. RESULTS: Intraobserver and interobserver reliability were excellent for VV2D and VV3D. No significant difference or bias between the first and second measurements or the two observers was found. A significant mean and absolute difference of respectively 1.00° and 1.61° existed between 2D and 3D measurements. CONCLUSIONS: EOS provides reliable varus/valgus measurements in 2D and 3D for the alignment of the knee joint with a knee prosthesis. However, significant differences exist between varus/valgus measurements in 2D and 3D.

Does imageless computer-assisted TKA lead to improved rotational alignment or fewer outliers? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Computer-assisted surgery (CAS) has been developed to enhance prosthetic alignment during primary TKAs. Imageless CAS improves coronal and sagittal alignment compared with conventional TKA. However, the effect of imageless CAS on rotational alignment remains unclear. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We conducted a systematic and qualitative review of the current literature regarding the effectiveness of imageless CAS during TKA on (1) rotational alignment of the femoral and tibial components and tibiofemoral mismatch in terms of deviation from neutral rotation, and (2) the number of femoral and tibial rotational outliers. METHODS: Data sources included PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. Study selection, data extraction, and methodologic quality assessment were conducted independently by two reviewers. Standardized mean difference with 95% CI was calculated for continuous variables (rotational alignment of the femoral or tibial component and tibiofemoral mismatch). To compare the number of outliers for femoral and tibial component rotation, the odds ratio and 95% CI were calculated. The literature search produced 657 potentially relevant studies, 17 of which met the inclusion criteria. One study was considered as having high methodologic quality, 15 studies had medium, and one study had low quality. RESULTS: Conflicting evidence was found for all outcome measures except for tibiofemoral mismatch. Moderate evidence was found that imageless CAS had no influence on postoperative tibiofemoral mismatch. The measurement protocol for measuring tibial rotation varied among the studies and in only one of the studies was the sample size calculation based on one of the outcome measures used in our systematic review. CONCLUSIONS: More studies of high methodologic quality and with a sample size calculation based on the outcome measures will be helpful to assess whether an imageless CAS TKA improves femoral and tibial rotational alignment and tibiofemoral mismatch or decreases the number of femoral and tibial rotational outliers. To statistically analyze the results of different studies, the same measurement protocol should be used among the studies.

The influence of computer-assisted surgery on rotational, coronal and sagittal alignment in revision total knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Despite good results of primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA), the number of revision total knee arthroplasties (rTKAs) is rising. Proper implant position is essential, since malposition leads to worse clinical outcome. In rTKA most anatomical landmarks have disappeared because of extensive bone loss, making it more difficult to adequately implant the knee prosthesis. In primary TKA, computer-assisted surgery (CAS) leads to better prosthetic alignment than mechanical navigation guides. Literature about the use of CAS in rTKA is scarce though, and the effect on rotational prosthetic alignment has not been investigated yet. Hence the primary objective of this study is to compare rotational prosthetic alignment when using CAS in rTKA compared to a mechanical navigation guide. Secondary objectives are to compare prosthetic alignment in the coronal and sagittal planes. It is hypothesized that CAS leads to better rotational, coronal and sagittal prosthetic alignment when used during rTKA. METHODS/DESIGN: A prospective clinical intervention study with use of a historical control group will be conducted. Forty-four patients with a minimum age of 18 to be admitted for CAS-rTKA between September 2012 and September 2015 will be included in the intervention group. Forty-four patients with a minimum age of 18 who underwent rTKA with the use of a mechanical navigation guide between January 2002 and April 2012 will form the historical control group. Both groups will be matched according to gender and type of revision prosthesis. Rotational prosthesis alignment will be evaluated using a CT-scan of the knee joint. DISCUSSION: Proper implant position is essential, since malposition leads to worse clinical outcome. Several studies show a significantly positive influence of CAS on prosthetic alignment in primary TKA, but literature about the use of CAS in rTKA is limited. The purpose of this study is thus to investigate the influence of CAS during rTKA on postoperative prosthetic alignment, compared to mechanical navigation guides. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands National Trial Register NTR3512.

Poorer survival after a primary implant during revision total knee arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) is a complex procedure. Depending on the degree of ligament and bone damage, either primary or revision implants are used. The purpose of this study was to compare survival rates of primary implants with revision implants when used during rTKA. METHODS: A retrospective comparative study was conducted between 1998 and 2009 during which 69 rTKAs were performed on 65 patients. Most common indications for revision were infection (30%), aseptic loosening (25%) and wear/osteolysis (25%). During rTKA, a primary implant was used in nine knees and a revision implant in 60. RESULTS: Survival of primary implants was 100% at one year, 73% [95% confidence interval (CI) 41-100] at two years and 44% (95% CI 7-81) at five years. Survival of revision implants was 95% (95% CI 89-100) at one year, 92% (95% CI 84-99) at two years and 92% (95% CI 84-99) at five years. Primary implants had a significantly worse survival rate than revision implants when implanted during rTKA [P = 0.039 (hazard ratio = 4.56, 95% CI 1.08-19.27)]. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results, it has to be considered whether primary implants are even an option during rTKA.