Does Matching Femoral Size and Shape Improve Bone Fit and Patient-reported Outcomes in TKA? A Matched Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: Some researchers have suggested that achieving good component coverage over the host bone during TKA (while avoiding implant overhang) may help achieve durable implant fixation and may be associated with better outcomes scores. However, the evidence about this is limited and contradictory. Contemporary morphometric TKA includes a wide array of components with various shapes and sizes, based on large anatomic databases and specific software that simulates bone cuts. Morphometric tibial components have shown improved bone coverage and better clinical outcomes than standardized implants, but the role of morphometric femoral components in bone coverage has not been studied precisely. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In a retrospective, controlled study that used patient matching, we asked: (1) Does the use of a contemporary morphometric component with more available sizes provide better femoral component fit and bone coverage than an earlier design with fewer sizes? (2) Are component fit and the presence of component overhang or underhang associated with different Knee Society Score (KSS) or Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) for Joint Replacement? METHODS: From 2012 to 2013, we performed 403 TKAs according to the following criteria: TKA performed for primary tricompartmental arthritis of the knee; varus, valgus, and flexion deformity less than 15°; and age between 18 and 85 years on the day of surgery. Among these 403 TKAs, 237 were performed using a morphometric implant and 166 with the earlier nonmorphometric implant. At 2 years of follow-up, 3% of patients in the morphometric group and 5% in the nonmorphometric group were lost to follow-up. Based on age, BMI, gender, and preoperative KSS and KOOS, two groups of 30 patients were matched in a 1:1 ratio from this longitudinally maintained database. Clinical outcomes were measured preoperatively and at a minimum follow-up of 2 years in both groups, using the KSS and KOOS. We evaluated postoperative CT images for each patient to analyze femoral implant rotation, bone coverage, and overhang and underhang status. RESULTS: The overhang status was similar between the two groups (23% had an overhang component in the morphometric knee group and 27% had an overhang component in the nonmorphometric knee group), and overhang was most frequently found in the lateral distal zone and medial anterior chamfer. Better cortical bone coverage was found in the morphometric knee group, with a thinner bone margin between the component edge and cortical border (morphometric group: 3 mm versus nonmorphometric knee group: 5 mm; p = 0.01). In general, there were few between-group differences in terms of patient-reported outcomes; of the seven metrics we analyzed, only the KSS favored the morphometric knee implant by a margin larger than the minimum clinically important difference (KSS mean difference: 21 points for the morphometric knee group; p < 0.05). Overhang of the femoral component of > 2 mm was associated with poorer KOOS, but not KSS, whereas a thinner bone margin had a beneficial impact on pain and global clinical scores (KOOS and KSS: p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The use of a morphometric femoral component design showed slightly improved bone fit and pain score according to the KSS at midterm follow-up compared with earlier implants with fewer sizes. Overhang > 2 mm was associated with worse KOOS. The tendency toward better outcomes in morphometric implants warrants longer-term evaluation before any definite conclusions about the association between bone fit and clinical results can be drawn.Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.

In slope-changing osteotomy one millimeter is not one degree: results of an artificial intelligence-automated software analysis.

BACKGROUND: Anterior closing wedge osteotomies (ACWO) are performed in revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery to correct an excessive posterior tibial slope (PTS). PURPOSE: With the help of automated planning software, this study investigates the assumption that 1mm of wedge height gives 1° of slope correction (1:1). METHODS: Fifty patients underwent ACWO, with the wedge height calculated using the 1:1 formula. Pre- and postosteotomy PTS were measured manually, and the achieved post-operative PTS was compared with the target PTS of 5.3° ± 1.9. The X-ray analysis was repeated virtually with the automated software, which also recommended a resection height. These parameters were then compared with the manually obtained parameters. RESULTS: Using a 1:1 formula, wedge heights of 8.5mm ± 2.3 was resected to achieve a PTS of 4.2° ± 0.32. This showed an overcorrection of 1.6° ± 0.8 from the target slope. This was consistent with the data from the automated software, which recommended a lower wedge height of 7.7mm ± 2.9. CONCLUSION: In trans-tubercle ACW, using a wedge height (mm) to slope correction (°) ratio of 1:1 can lead to slight over-correction. Automated software planning is useful for planning correction osteotomies in the sagittal plane.

An artificial intelligence based on a convolutional neural network allows a precise analysis of the alignment of the lower limb.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to develop a numeric tool to automate the analysis of deformity from lower limb telemetry and assess its accuracy. Our hypothesis was that artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm would be able to determine mechanical and anatomical angles to within 1°. METHODS: After institutional review board approval, 1175 anonymized patient telemetries were extracted from a database of more than ten thousand telemetries. From this selection, 31 packs of telemetries were composed and sent to 11 orthopaedic surgeons for analysis. Each surgeon had to identify on the telemetries fourteen landmarks allowing determination of the following four angles: hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA), medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA), lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA), and joint line convergence angle (JLCA). An algorithm based on a machine learning process was trained on our database to automatically determine angles. The reliability of the algorithm was evaluated by calculating the difference of determination precision between the surgeons and the algorithm. RESULTS: The analysis time for obtaining 28 points and 8 angles per image was 48 ± 12 s for the algorithm. The average difference between the angles measured by the surgeons and the algorithm was around 1.9° for all the angles of interest: 1.3° for HKA, 1.6° for MPTA, 2.1° for LDFA, and 2.4° for JLCA. Intraclass correlation was greater than 95% for all angles. CONCLUSION: The algorithm showed high accuracy for automated angle measurement, allowing the estimation of limb frontal alignment to the nearest degree.

Minimum Five Years Follow-Up of Total Knee Arthroplasty Using Morphometric Implants in Patients With Osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: The use of morphometric implants in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has shown better early clinical outcomes compared to conventional implants. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the functional outcome and the implant survivorship of a morphometric TKA at a minimum of 5 years of follow-up. METHODS: From May 2012 to June 2015, all patients undergoing primary TKA with a single design of morphometric posterior-stabilized prosthesis (Persona; Zimmer) in a prospective observational single-center study were evaluated. The Knee Society Scoring System (KSS) and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) were completed preoperatively, 1, 3, and 5 years postoperatively. Kaplan-Meier was used to calculate survivorship of the implants. The average follow-up was 75 months. RESULTS: In total, 237 TKAs were performed in 235 patients with a mean age of 73 years (49-90). The KSS Knee Score increased from 44.7 (13-64) preoperatively to 93.6 (71-100), the KSS Function Score from 45.8 (17-69) to 92.2 (51-98), and the KSS Satisfaction Score from 26.6 (16-51) to 41 (35-55) at 5 years of follow-up. Similarly, for the KOOS score, a significant improvement of all the subscales was observed at 5 years of follow-up. Implant survival without reoperation at 5 years of follow up was 98.72% (95% confidence interval 0.95-1.00). CONCLUSION: This is the first study demonstrating that significant improvements of the functional scores with good survivorship can be achieved at a minimum of 5 years of follow-up with TKA using morphometric implants.

Health economic value of CT scan based robotic assisted UKA: a systematic review of comparative studies.

PURPOSE: The aim of this systematic review was to compare relevant health economic consequences of the CT-based robotic-arm-assisted system versus conventional Uni-compartmental Knee Arthroplasty (UKA). METHODS: In November 2020, A PRISMA systematic review was conducted using four databases (Pubmed, Scopus, Cochrane and Google Scholar) to identify all comparative studies reporting health economic assessments, such as robotic system costs, consumable costs, surgical revision rate, operating time, length of stay, and inpatient care costs. RESULTS: A total of nine comparative studies published between 2014 and 2020 were included in this systematic review. There was a moderate risk of bias as assessed using the ROBINS-I Tool. The CT-based robotic-arm-assisted system seemed to be associated with a lower risk of revision, decreased analgesia requirements during hospitalization, a shorter length of stay, and lower inpatient care costs compared to a conventional technique. CONCLUSION: CT-based robotic-arm-assisted system for UKA appears to be an economically viable solution with a positive health economic impact as it tends to decrease revision rate compared to conventional UKA, improve post-operative rehabilitation and analgesia management. Post-operative inpatient care costs seem lower with the robotic-assisted system but depend on institutional case volume and differ among health systems. More studies are needed to confirm cost-effectiveness of CT-based robotic-arm-assisted system based on different health systems. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review, Level IV.