Enhancing soft tissue balance: Evaluating robotic-assisted functional positioning in varus knees across flexion and extension with quantitative sensor-guided technology.

PURPOSE: Functional implant positioning (FIP) for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an evolution of kinematic alignment based on preoperative CT scan and robotic-assisted technology. This study aimed to assess the ligament balancing of image-based robotic-assisted TKA in extension, mid-flexion and flexion with an FIP using intraoperative sensor-guided technology. The hypothesis was that image-based robotic-assisted TKA performed by FIP would achieve ligament balancing all along the arc of knee flexion. METHODS: This prospective monocentric study included 47 consecutive patients with varus knees undergoing image-based robotic-assisted TKA performed with FIP. After robotic-assisted bone cuts, trial components were inserted, and soft tissue balance was assessed using sensor-guided technology at 10°, 45° and 90° of knee flexion. A mediolateral balanced knee was defined by an intercompartmental pressure difference (ICPD) ≤ 15 lbf and medial and lateral compartment pressure ≤60 lbf. The mean age was 71.6 years old ±6.7, the mean BMI was 29.0 kg/m2 ± 4.9 and the mean preoperative HKA was 174° ± 5 [159; 183]. RESULTS: The mean postoperative knee alignment was 177.0° ± 2.2° [172; 181]. There were 93.6% of balanced knees (n = 44) at 10 and 90° of knee flexion versus 76.6% (n = 36) at 45° of knee flexion with a significant difference (p = 0.014). Median ICPD at 10, 45 and 90° of knee flexion were, respectively, 7.0 (interquartile range [IQR]: 9), 11.0 (IQR: 9.5) and 8.0 (IQR: 9.0). Pairwise analyses revealed differences for ICPD at 45° versus ICPD at 10° (p = 0.003) and ICPD at 90° versus ICPD at 45° (p = 0.007). CONCLUSION: FIP with an image-based robotic-assisted system allowed the restoration of a well-balanced knee at 10° and 90° of flexion in varus knees. Nevertheless, some discrepancies occurred in midflexion, and more work is needed to understand ligament behaviour all along the arc of knee flexion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.

Restoration of preoperative tibial alignment improves functional results after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: The alignment obtained after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) influences the risk of failure. Kinematic alignment after UKA based on Cartier angle restauration is likely to improve clinical outcomes compared with mechanical alignment. The purpose of this study is to analyze the influence of implant alignment and native knee restoration after UKA using the conventional techniques on clinical outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective study included 144 medial UKA patients from 2015 to 2020. Radiographic measurements were performed pre- and postoperatively. Outliers were defined as follows: Δ Cartier > 3° (difference between the preoperative and postoperative Cartier angle); Δ MPTA (Medial Proximal Tibial angle) and postoperative TCA (Tibial Coronal component Angle) > 3° (difference between the positioning of the tibial implant and the preoperative proximal tibial deformity). The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), the International Knee Society (IKS) Function and Knee score, the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), and the Subjective Knee Value (SKV) were evaluated. A Student t test or a non-parametric Wilcoxon test was used for non-normal data to compare pre- and postoperative values for functional scores and angular measurements. The correlation of postoperative angles with functional outcomes was assessed by the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. RESULTS: During the inclusion period, 214 patients underwent medial UKA, 71 patients were excluded, and 19 were lost to follow-up leaving 124 patients with 144 knees (20 bilateral UKA) included for analysis with a mean follow-up of 54.7 months ± 22.1 (24-95). The Δ Cartier was significantly correlated with IKS function (R2 = 0.06, p < 0.001) and FJS (R2 = 0.05, p < 0.01) scores. The Δ preoperative MPTA-TCA was significantly correlated (p < 0.001) with KOOS (R2 = 0.38), IKS Knee (R2 = 0.17), IKS function (R2 = 0.34), SKV (R2 = 0.08), and FJS (R2 = 0.37) scores. In subgroup analysis, non-outliers (< 3°) for Δ preoperative MPTA-TCA had better KOOS score (Δ = 23.5, p < 0.001) and IKS Function (Δ = 17.7, p < 0.001) compared to outliers (> 3°) patients. CONCLUSION: Functional results after medial UKA can be influenced by implant alignment in the coronal plane with slight clinical improvement when positioning the tibial implant close to the preoperative tibial deformity, rather than by restoring the Cartier angle. This series suggests the interest of a more personalized alignment strategy, but these results will have to be confirmed by other controlled studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, retrospective case series.

An anatomo-functional implant positioning technique with robotic assistance for primary TKA allows the restoration of the native knee alignment and a natural functional ligament pattern, with a faster recovery at 6 months compared to an adjusted mechanical technique.

PURPOSE: An anatomo-functional implant positioning (AFIP) technique in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) could restore physiological ligament balance (symmetric gap in extension, asymmetric gap in flexion). The purposes were to compare (1) ligament balancing in extension and flexion after TKA in the AFIP group, (2) TKA alignment, implant positioning and patellar tracking between AFIP and adjusted mechanical alignment (aMA) techniques, (3) clinical outcomes between both groups at 12 months. METHODS: All robotic-assisted TKA with an AFIP technique were included (n = 40). Exclusion criteria were genu valgum (HKA angle > 183°), extra-articular deformity more than 10°, and patellar maltracking (high-grade J-sign). One control patient with a TKA implanted by an aMA technique was matched for each case, based on age, body mass index, sex, and knee alignment. Ligament balancing (medial and lateral gaps in millimeters) in full extension and at 90° of flexion after TKA in the AFIP group was assessed with the robotic system. TKA alignment (HKA angle), implants positioning (femoral and tibial coronal axis, tibial slope, joint-line orientation), patellar tracking (patellar tilt and translation) and the Knee Society Score (KSS) at 6 and 12 months were compared between both groups. The ligament balancing was compared using a t test for paired samples in the AFIP group. The radiographic measurements and KSS scores were compared between groups using a t test for independent samples. RESULTS: In the AFIP group, there was no significant difference between the medial and lateral gap laxity in extension (NS). A significant opening of the lateral gap was observed in flexion compared to extension (mean: + 2.9 mm; p < 0.0001). The mean postoperative HKA angle was comparable between both groups (177.3° ± 2.1 in the AFIP group vs 176.8° ± 3.2; NS). In the AFIP group, the femoral anatomy was restored (90.9° ± 1.6) and the tibial varus was partially corrected (87.4° ± 1.8). The improvement of Knee and Function KSS at 6 months was better in the AFIP group (59.3 ± 11.9 and 51.7 ± 20, respectively, versus 49.3 ± 9.7 and 20.8 ± 13; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The AFIP concept allowed the restoration of the native knee alignment and a natural functional ligament pattern. With a more physiological target for ligament balancing, the AFIP technique had equivalent clinical outcomes at 12 months compared to aMA, with a faster recovery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III retrospective therapeutic case control series.

Functional implant positioning in total hip arthroplasty and the role of robotic-arm assistance.

INTRODUCTION: Accurate implant positioning, tailored to the phenotype and unique biomechanics of each patient is the single most important objective in achieving stability in THA and maximise range of motion. The spine-pelvis-hip construct functions as a single unit adapting to postural changes. It is widely accepted in the literature that no universaltarget exists and variations in spinopelvic mobility mandate adjustments to the surgical plan; thus bringing to the fore the concept of personalised, functional component positioning. METHODS: This manuscript aims to outline the challenges posed by spinopelvic imbalance and present a reproducible, stepwise approach to achieve functional-component positioning. We also present the one-year functional outcomes and Patient Reported Outcome Measures of a prospective cohort operated with this technique. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Robotic-arm assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty has facilitated enhanced planning based on the patient's phenotype and evidence suggests it results in more reproducible and accurate implant positioning. Preservation of offset, avoiding leg-length discrepancy, accurate restoration of the centre of rotation and accomplishing the combinedversion target are very important parameters in Total Hip Arthroplasty that affect post-operative implant longevity, patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes.

Better accuracy and implant survival in medial imageless robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compared to conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: two- to eleven-year follow-up of three hundred fifty-six consecutive knees.

PURPOSE: Implant malpositioning, joint line (JL) lowering, and malalignment have been identified as risk factors for implant failure in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). The aims of this study were to compare the accuracy of implant positioning in robotic-assisted UKA versus conventional UKA in a large cohort and examine the correlation with implant survival at mid-term follow-up. METHODS: This retrospective study included 356 medial UKAs from 2011 to 2019. The radiological measurements performed were coronal positioning of tibial implant according to Cartier angle (Δ Cartier), posterior tibial slope (PTS), residual hip-knee-ankle (HKA), and JL restoration. Outliers were defined as follows: post-operative HKA < 175° or > 180°, Δ Cartier > 3° or < - 3°, JL change ≥ 2 mm, and PTS < 2° or > 8°. The survival probability was reported at the last follow-up. RESULTS: Out of the 356 knees included, 159 underwent conventional UKA (44.5%) and 197 (55.5%) robotic-assisted UKA. The mean follow-up was 61.3 months ± 24.0. Robotic UKA was associated with better accuracy compared to conventional UKA in relation to HKA (67% vs 56%, p = 0.023), JL restoration (70% vs 44%, p < 0.0001), PTS (83% vs 55%, p < 0.0001), and tibial varus restoration (65% vs 55%, p = 0.049). Implant survival in the robotic group was found to be superior at the last follow-up (96.4% versus 87.3% at 9 years, p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Robotic assistance in patients undergoing medial UKA was associated with better accuracy compared to conventional UKA with respect to tibial implant positioning, post-operative limb alignment, and JL restoration. This was translated in improved survival at mid-term follow-up favouring the robotic group.

In Vitro Testing and Clinical Handling of a Novel Implant Positioning Technology for Proximal Humeral Plating.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Fractures of the proximal humerus are common, particularly in elderly populations. Anatomical locking plates target stabilization with a multitude of screws spanning into the humeral head. Sound implant placement and screw length determination are key for a successful clinical outcome but are difficult to obtain from planar X-rays. A novel implant positioning technology for proximal humerus plating (Xin1) outputs screw lengths suggestions and plate position based on hole projections in conventional X-ray images. This study investigated the performance of a prototype Xin1 system in a postmortem (in vitro) experiment as well as in a clinical handling test. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For in vitro testing, twelve shoulders from six anatomical specimens were randomized into two groups to compare the Xin1 technique to the conventional operation in terms of surgical precision, procedure time and X-ray exposure. For the clinical trial, 11 patients undergoing plating of the proximal humerus were included. The aim was to investigate clinical handling of the Xin1 marker clip and to retrospectively evaluate the system performance in a real-life fracture situation. Image pairs before and after insertion of the proximal screws were retrospectively processed to investigate the influence of potential bone fragment shifts on the system output. RESULTS: In the postmortem experiment, the use of the system significantly improved the surgical precision (52% error reduction), procedure time (38% shorter) and radiation exposure (64% less X-rays). Clinical handling demonstrated seamless embedding of the marker clip into existing clinical workflows without adverse events reported. Retrospective X-ray analysis on six eligible patients revealed differences in the calculated screw lengths of ≤2 mm before and after screw insertion for five patients. In one patient, the screw lengths differed up to 8 mm, which might indicate displacement of the head fragment. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest a strong potential of the Xin1 assistance technology to enhance the surgical procedure and patient outcomes in the rising incidence of osteoporotic humeral fractures. Robust performance in a real-life fracture situation was observed. In-depth validation of the system is, however, needed before placing it into clinical practice.

The role of cochlear implant positioning on MR imaging quality: a preclinical in vivo study with a novel implant magnet system.

PURPOSES: To investigate the effects for Ultra 3D cochlear implant (CI) positioning on MR imaging quality, looking at a comprehensive description of intracranial structures in cases of unilateral and bilateral CI placement. METHODS: Four CI angular positions (90°, 120°, 135° and 160°) at 9 cm distance from the outer-ear canal were explored. The 1.5 T MRI assessment included our institutional protocol for the investigation of brain pathologies without gadolinium application. Three investigators (two experienced neuroradiologists and one experienced otoneurosurgeon) independently evaluated the MR findings. A 4-point scale was adopted to describe 14 intracranial structures and to determine which CI positioning allowed the best image quality score and how bilateral CI placement modified MRI scan visibility. RESULTS: A high positive correlation was found between the three blinded observers. Structures situated contralateral from the CI showed high-quality values in all four placements. Structures situated ipsilaterally provided results suitable for diagnostic purposes for at least one position. At 90°, artifacts mainly involved brain structures located cranially and anteriorly (e.g., temporal lobe); on the contrary, at 160°, artifacts mostly influenced the posterior fossa structures (e.g., occipital lobe). For the bilateral CI condition, MR imaging examination revealed additional artifacts involving all structures located close to either CI, where there was a signal void/distortion area. CONCLUSIONS: Suitable unilateral CI positioning can allow the visualization of intracranial structures with sufficient visibility for diagnostic purposes. Bilateral CI positioning significantly deteriorates the anatomical visibility. CI positioning might play a crucial role for patients who need post-operative MRI surveillance.

Automated muscle elongation measurement during reverse shoulder arthroplasty planning.

BACKGROUND: Adequate deltoid and rotator cuff elongation in reverse shoulder arthroplasty is crucial to maximize postoperative functional outcomes and to avoid complications. Measurements of deltoid and rotator cuff elongation during preoperative planning can support surgeons in selecting a suitable implant design and position. Therefore, this study presented and evaluated a fully automated method for measuring deltoid and rotator cuff elongation. METHODS: Complete scapular and humeral models were extracted from computed tomography scans of 40 subjects. First, a statistical shape model of the complete humerus was created and evaluated to identify the muscle attachment points. Next, a muscle wrapping algorithm was developed to identify the muscle paths and to compute muscle lengths and elongations after reverse shoulder arthroplasty implantation. The accuracy of the muscle attachment points and the muscle elongation measurements was evaluated for the 40 subjects by use of both complete and artificially created partial humeral models. Additionally, the muscle elongation measurements were evaluated for a set of 50 arthritic shoulder joints. Finally, a sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of implant positioning on deltoid and rotator cuff elongation. RESULTS: For the complete humeral models, all muscle attachment points were identified with a median error < 3.5 mm. For the partial humeral models, the errors on the deltoid attachment point largely increased. Furthermore, all muscle elongation measurements showed an error < 1 mm for 75% of the subjects for both the complete and partial humeral models. For the arthritic shoulder joints, the errors on the muscle elongation measurements were <2 mm for 75% of the subjects. Finally, the sensitivity analysis showed that muscle elongations were affected by implant positioning. DISCUSSION: This study presents an automated method for accurately measuring muscle elongations during preoperative planning of shoulder arthroplasty. The results show that the accuracy in measuring muscle elongations is higher than the accuracy in indicating the muscle attachment points. Hence, muscle elongation measurements are insensitive to the observed errors on the muscle attachment points. Related to this finding, muscle elongations can be accurately measured for both a complete humeral model and a partial humeral model. Because the presented method also showed accurate results for arthritic shoulder joints, it can be used during preoperative shoulder arthroplasty planning, in which typically only the proximal humerus is present in the scan and in which bone arthropathy can be present. As the muscle elongations are sensitive to implant positioning, surgeons can use the muscle elongation measurements to refine their surgical plan.

Implantation Accuracy of a Lateral Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Hoffa´s Fat Pad-Preserving Medial Approach Versus the Transpatellar Lateral Approach.

BACKGROUND: A small proportion of patients suffer from isolated lateral osteoarthritis where the sole lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a possible treatment option. There, both a medial and a lateral surgical approach can be considered. This study should answer the question whether the lateral approach is superior to a modified medial approach in terms of implantation accuracy and subjective outcome. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 175 patients with lateral UKA were included between 2015 and 2020. In 82 patients, the lateral approach was used, and in 93 patients, the medial approach was used. To assess implantation accuracy, different imaging criteria on postoperative radiographs were analyzed. Postoperative patient-related outcome measurements (PROMs) (OKS, LEFS, and EQ5D) were evaluated. Statistical significance was assumed for P < .05. RESULTS: The tibial implant relation to the tibial plateau diameter in the lateral approach was significantly larger than in the medial approach (23.6% vs 22.2%; P < .001). Significantly more deviations >15° regarding flexion position of the femoral implant (P = .002) and a higher number of deviations of the slope was found (P = .06) in the lateral approach. The lateral approach showed a significantly higher rate of lateral positioning of the femoral component (P = .007). Post-PROMs showed significant improvement in both approaches. CONCLUSION: The lateral approach is not superior regarding different radiological accuracy criteria. The Hoffa´s fat pad-preserving medial approach showed good results in implantation accuracy and therefore is a good alternative to implant lateral UKA. In addition, significant improvement in PROMs could be demonstrated.

Accurate implant fit and leg alignment after cruciate-retaining patient-specific total knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: For improved outcomes in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) correct implant fitting and positioning are crucial. In order to facilitate a best possible implant fitting and positioning patient-specific systems have been developed. However, whether or not these systems allow for better implant fitting and positioning has yet to be elucidated. For this reason, the aim was to analyse the novel patient-specific cruciate retaining knee replacement system iTotal™ CR G2 that utilizes custom-made implants and instruments for its ability to facilitate accurate implant fitting and positioning including correction of the hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA). METHODS: We assessed radiographic results of 106 patients who were treated with the second generation of a patient-specific cruciate retaining knee arthroplasty using iTotal™ CR G2 (ConforMIS Inc.) for tricompartmental knee osteoarthritis (OA) using custom-made implants and instruments. The implant fit and positioning as well as the correction of the mechanical axis (hip-knee-ankle angle, HKA) and restoration of the joint line were determined using pre- and postoperative radiographic analyses. RESULTS: On average, HKA was corrected from 174.4° ± 4.6° preoperatively to 178.8° ± 2.2° postoperatively and the coronal femoro-tibial angle was adjusted on average 4.4°. The measured preoperative tibial slope was 5.3° ± 2.2° (mean +/- SD) and the average postoperative tibial slope was 4.7° ± 1.1° on lateral views. The joint line was well preserved with an average modified Insall-Salvati index of 1.66 ± 0.16 pre- and 1.67 ± 0.16 postoperatively. The overall accuracy of fit of implant components was decent with a measured medial overhang of more than 1 mm (1.33 mm ± 0.32 mm) in 4 cases only. Further, a lateral overhang of more than 1 mm (1.8 mm ± 0.63) (measured in the anterior-posterior radiographs) was observed in 11 cases, with none of the 106 patients showing femoral notching. CONCLUSION: The patient-specific iTotal™ CR G2 total knee replacement system facilitated a proper fitting and positioning of the implant components. Moreover, a good restoration of the leg axis towards neutral alignment was achieved as planned. Nonetheless, further clinical follow-up studies are necessary to validate our findings and to determine the long-term impact of using this patient- specific system.

Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty has a learning curve of seven cases for integration into the surgical workflow but no learning curve effect for accuracy of implant positioning.

PURPOSE: The primary objective of this study was to determine the surgical team's learning curve for robotic-arm assisted TKA through assessments of operative times, surgical team comfort levels, accuracy of implant positioning, limb alignment, and postoperative complications. Secondary objectives were to compare accuracy of implant positioning and limb alignment in conventional jig-based TKA versus robotic-arm assisted TKA. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included 60 consecutive conventional jig-based TKAs followed by 60 consecutive robotic-arm assisted TKAs performed by a single surgeon. Independent observers recorded surrogate markers of the learning curve including operative times, stress levels amongst the surgical team using the state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI) questionnaire, accuracy of implant positioning, limb alignment, and complications within 30 days of surgery. Cumulative summation (CUSUM) analyses were used to assess learning curves for operative time and STAI scores in robotic TKA. RESULTS: Robotic-arm assisted TKA was associated with a learning curve of seven cases for operative times (p = 0.01) and surgical team anxiety levels (p = 0.02). Cumulative robotic experience did not affect accuracy of implant positioning (n.s.) limb alignment (n.s.) posterior condylar offset ratio (n.s.) posterior tibial slope (n.s.) and joint line restoration (n.s.). Robotic TKA improved accuracy of implant positioning (p < 0.001) and limb alignment (p < 0.001) with no additional risk of postoperative complications compared to conventional manual TKA. CONCLUSION: Implementation of robotic-arm assisted TKA led to increased operative times and heightened levels of anxiety amongst the surgical team for the initial seven cases but there was no learning curve for achieving the planned implant positioning. Robotic-arm assisted TKA improved accuracy of implant positioning and limb alignment compared to conventional jig-based TKA. The findings of this study will enable clinicians and healthcare professionals to better understand the impact of implementing robotic TKA on the surgical workflow, assist the safe integration of this procedure into surgical practice, and facilitate theatre planning and scheduling of operative cases during the learning phase. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Improved implant position and lower revision rate with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: The aim of this case-control study was to compare implant position and revision rate for UKA, performed with either a robotic-assisted system or with conventional technique. METHODS: Eighty UKA (57 medial, 23 lateral) were performed with robotic assistance (BlueBelt Navio system) between 2013 and 2017. These patients were matched with 80 patients undergoing UKA using the same prosthesis, implanted using conventional technique. The sagittal and coronal component position was assessed on postoperative radiographs. The revision rate was reported at last follow-up. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 19.7 months ± 9 for the robotic-assisted group, and 24.2 months ± 16 for the control group. The rate of postoperative limb alignment outliers (± 2°) was significantly higher in the control group than in the robotic-assisted group for both lateral UKA (26% in robotic group versus 61% in control group; p = 0.018) and medial UKA (16% versus 32%, resp.; p = 0.038). The coronal and sagittal tibial baseplate position had significantly less outliers (± 3°) in the robotic-assisted group, than in the control group. Revision rates were: 5% (n = 4/80) for robotic assisted UKA and 9% (n = 7/80) for conventional UKA (n.s.). The reasons for revision were different between groups, with 86% of revisions in the control group occurring in association with component malposition or limb malalignment, compared with none in the robotic-assisted group. CONCLUSION: Robotic-assisted UKA has a lower rate of postoperative limb alignment outliers, as well as a lower revision rate, compared to conventional technique. The accuracy of implant positioning is improved by this robotic-assisted system. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level of evidence III. Retrospective case-control study CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This is the first paper comparing implant position, clinical outcome, and revision rate for UKA performed using the Navio robotic system with a control group.

Better Implant Positioning and Clinical Outcomes With a Morphometric Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. Results of a Retrospective, Matched-Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: During medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), tibial tray implantation requires compromise between bone coverage and rotational position. It was hypothesized that morphometric tibial tray (MTT) would improve implant positioning and subsequently clinical outcomes as compared to symmetric tibial tray (STT). METHODS: A total of 106 patients who underwent medial UKA in our department between January 2017 and March 2018 were included matched on gender and age (53 in each group). Inclusion criteria were symptomatic medial femorotibial osteoarthritis, functional anterior cruciate ligament, primary arthritis, or osteonecrosis. Rotation of the tibial implant, tibial bone coverage, medial and posterior overhang were assessed with a postoperative computed tomography scan. The Knee Society Score (KSS), the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Short Form (KOOS SF), and the quality of life score EuroQoL 5-Dimensions 3-Levels (EQ5D3L) were assessed at a minimum of 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: Implants of the STT group exhibited more external rotation (6.3° ± 4.02° vs 4.6° ± 3.59°; P = .04), and medial and posterior overhang >3 mm (35% vs 0% and 22% vs 0%; P < .0001) but no difference for tibial bone coverage (97.3% ± 11.35% vs 94.7% ± 10.89%; P = .23). Global KSS (188.6 ± 6.6 vs 175.2 ± 31.7; P < .01), KOOS SF (16.9 ± 6.1 vs 22.5 ± 11.8; P < .003), and EQ5D3L (1 ± 0.1 vs 0.9 ± 0.2; P < .001) were higher in MTT group. According to the multivariate analysis, MTT had a positive independent effect on the KSS, KOOS SF, and EQ5D3L. CONCLUSION: The use of an MTT in medial UKA allowed better implant positioning when decreasing the rate of overhang; superior short-term clinical outcomes were found as compared to STT.

Influence of Acetabular Shell Position and Component Design on Hip Dynamic Dislocation.

BACKGROUND: Dislocation is a major complication following total hip arthroplasty, with risk factors such as surgical technique, implant positioning, and implant design. Literature has suggested the distance the femoral head must travel before dislocation to be a predictive factor of dislocation where smaller travel distance has increased dislocation risk. The purpose of this study was to compare 3 designs (hemispherical, metal-on-metal, and dual mobility [DM]) in terms of the dynamic dislocation distance and force required to dislocate. METHODS: This dynamic dislocation distance model used a material testing system that defined acetabular component inclination (30°, 45°, and 60°), anteversion angles (0°, 15°, and 30°), and pelvic tilt (5° [standing] and 26° [chair rise]). Testing groups included a hemispherical shell with a modular polyethylene liner and 32-mm head, a metal-on-metal hip resurfacing cup design with a 40-mm CoCr head, and a DM design with a 42-mm outside diameter articulating liner and an inner 28-mm articulating head. RESULTS: The dynamic dislocation distance of the DM hip was greater than that of the other designs for all inclination, anteversion, and pelvic tilt angles tested with the exception of 60° inclination/0° anteversion. At 26° pelvic tilt, it was observed that dislocation distance increased with greater anteversion and decreased with larger inclination. CONCLUSION: Clinical results have shown the DM design may reduce dislocation. These data support those findings and suggest that if instability is a concern preoperatively or intraoperatively, using a DM implant increases the dynamic dislocation distance.

Patient-Specific Contact Stress Does Not Predict Polyethylene Wear Rate in a Specific Pressfit Cup.

BACKGROUND: The most common reason for revision total hip arthroplasty remains polyethylene wear. Development dysplasia of the hip and revision situations requires a conscious compromise of implant position. The surgeon should know about the consequence on wear via a possible change in hip contact force. The objective of this study is to investigate whether annual wear is dependent on hip contact force. METHODS: Forty-five inserts (DuraLoc, DePuy) that were explanted in our department were included. Three-dimensional gravimetric determination of the wear was performed by fluid displacement. Then, the hip contact force was determined using radiographs according to the Blumentritt model. RESULTS: No correlation was found between patient-specific factors and the annual wear. The hip contact force estimated by the Blumentritt model also showed no correlation between hip contact force and annual wear. Two single model parameters correlated significantly with wear: VRECAB as a ratio of the lever length of the spinocrural and the pelvitrochanteric muscles and the angle Alpha as a measure of the position of the center of rotation in relation to the greater trochanter. The greater the ratio spinocrural/pelvitrochanteric lever arm (R = 0.408, P = .005) and the greater the Alpha angle (more valgus the femoral neck) (R = 0.377, P = .011) were, the greater was the wear. CONCLUSION: These results lead to the conclusion that neither patient-specific factors nor the estimated hip contact force have a major influence on annual wear in the case of DuraLoc cups. Only a coxa valga and a small femoral offset contribute in a limited amount to an increase in wear.

The influence of different sets of surgical instrumentation in Oxford UKA on bearing size and component position.

INTRODUCTION: The Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (OUKA) has been proven to be an effective treatment for anteromedial osteoarthritis of the knee joint. New instrumentation has been introduced to improve the reproducibility of implant positioning and to minimize bone loss during tibial resection (Oxford Microplasty; Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, Indiana, USA). METHODS: To assess the effect of the new instrumentation, we retrospectively evaluated the postoperative radiographs and surgical records of 300 OUKAs in three consecutive cohorts of patients. The first cohort consists of the first 100 minimal invasive implantations of the OUKA using the conventional phase III instrumentation, the second cohort consists of the 100 most recent minimal invasive OUKA with the conventional phase III instrumentation and the third cohort consists of the first 100 minimal invasive OUKA using the new Oxford Microplasty instrumentation. RESULTS: Mean bearing thickness was statistically significant and lower in OUKA with use of the updated instrumentation than with the conventional instrumentation (p = 0.01 and p = 0.04). Additionally, statistically significant and more femoral components were aligned within the accepted range of tolerance in both the coronal and the sagittal plane with use of the updated instrumentation compared to the conventional phase III instrumentation in group A (p = 0.029 and p = 0.038) and in the sagittal plane with use of the updated instrumentation compared to the conventional phase III instrumentation in group B (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: The new modified instrumentation seems to be an effective tool to reduce the risk of malalignment of the femoral component in the coronal and in the sagittal plane compared to the conventional phase III instrumentation. Furthermore, the instrumentation is also effective in determining an adequate level of tibial resection and thus avoiding unnecessary bone loss.

Abnormal rate of intraoperative and postoperative implant positioning outliers using "MRI-based patient-specific" compared to "computer assisted" instrumentation in total knee replacement.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyze first intraoperative alignment and reason to abandon the use of patient-specific instrumentation using intraoperative CAS measurement, secondly assess by postoperative CT analysis if CI, based on preoperative 3D-MRI data, improved postoperative component positioning (including femoral rotation) and lower limb alignment as compared with results obtained with CAS. METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, 80 consecutive patients scheduled to undergo TKA were enrolled. Eligible knees were randomized to the group of PSI-TKAs (n = 40) or to the group of CAS-TKAs (n = 40). In the CAS group, CAS determined and controlled cutting block positioning in each plane. In the PSI group, CAS allowed to measure adequacy of intraoperative alignment including femoral component rotation. At 3 months after surgery, implants position were measured and analyzed with full-weight bearing plain radiographs and CT scan. RESULTS: Intraoperatively, there was a significant difference concerning Sagittal Femoral mechanical, Frontal tibial mechanical angle and tibial slope between the two groups (respectively p = 0.01, p = 0.02, p = 0.046). Custom instrumentation was abandoned intraoperatively in seven knees (17.5 %). Abnormal tibial cuts were responsible of the abandon in three out of seven cases, femoral cut in 1/7 and dual abnormalities in 3/7. Postoperatively, tibial slope outliers percentage was higher in the patient specific instrumentation group with six patients (18.18 %) versus one patient (2.5 %) in the CAS group (p = 0.041). CONCLUSION: Patient specific instrumentation was associated with an important number of hazardous cut and a higher rate of outliers in our series and thus should be used with caution as related to. This study is the first to our acknowledgement to compare intra-operative ancillary and implant positioning of PSI-TKA and CAS-TKA. High rate of malposition are sustained by our findings, as such PSI-TKA should be used with caution, by surgeons capable to switch to conventional instrumentation intra-operatively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Randomized control trial, Level I.

The influence of the surgeon's handedness and standing position at the operating table on the radiological outcomes in primary total knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare radiological outcomes of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in mechanical alignment implant positioning in the coronal and sagittal planes depending on surgeons' handedness and their position at the operating table. METHODS: A total number of 200 consecutive patients with idiopathic osteoarthritis and varus knees who underwent TKA were retrospectively included in this research. Patients were operated on by 4 surgeons (50 for each surgeon) selected according to their handedness and position at the operative table. Surgeon I (right-handed, standing at the operating table always on the right side); Surgeon II(left-handed, standing at the operating table always on the left side); Surgeon III (right-handed, standing at the operating table on the side of the operated limb); Surgeon IV (left-handed, standing at the operating table on the side of the operated limb). RESULTS: Comparing postoperative radiological results statistically significant differences were calculated in the case of deviation from HKA angle (left TKA -1.5°; Interquartile Range [IQR] = -2.6-[-1] vs right TKA -3°; IQR = -4.5-[-2]; p = 0.01) for surgeon II and MPTA for surgeon IV (left TKA 0°; IQR = -1-0.5 vs right TKA 1°; IQR = 0-2; p < 0.01). Higher deviation from the mechanical alignment angles and implant positioning was revealed for a less convenient operation site for the surgeon. CONCLUSION: We recommend that all surgeons performing TKAs from the less comfortable side should take great care in establishing the MPTA and HKA angles to avoid surgical errors in implant positioning and limb alignment.

Comparative evaluation of accuracy of implants placed with thermoplastic and three-dimensional-printed surgical guides: A randomized controlled trial.

Background: The current study was planned to evaluate the accuracy of dental implant placement with two different types of surgical guides: Thermoplastic and three-dimensional (3D) printed. Materials and Methods: A total of 32 implants were placed in 20 healthy, partially dentate individuals with an isolated single missing tooth. The implant sites were randomly allocated into two treatment groups: Group A (thermoplastic implant surgical guide, n = 16 implants) and Group B (3D printed implant surgical guide, n = 16 implants). All the cases in both groups were digitally planned according to a defined protocol, and a comparison of the planned and actual implant positions was performed using the medical image analysis software. The differences in the outcome variables, i.e., angular deviation (AD), 3D error at the entry, 3D error at the apex (3D EA), vertical deviation (VD), and composite deviation, were statistically analyzed. Results: All the outcome variables showed improvements, but statistically significant improvement was shown by AD (P = 0.005), 3D EA (P = 0.01), and VD (P = 0.007). The mean and standard deviation (SD) for AD, (3D EA), and VD were 5.58° ±1.93°, 0.96 ± 0.32 mm, and 0.58 ± 0.36 mm, respectively, for group A. The mean and SD for AD, (3D EA), and VD were 3.94° ± 0.64°, 0.64 ± 0.35 mm, and 0.29 ± 0.13 mm, respectively, for group B (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Within the limits of the study, dental implants placed using 3D-printed surgical guides were positioned clinically with greater accuracy, and fewer deviations were observed from their presurgical planned positions as compared to the thermoplastic surgical guides.

Customized-individually-made origin® implants in total knee arthroplasty allow a reliable solution for accurate reproduction of planned implant positioning.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of a patient-specific, customized individually made (CIM) total knee replacement (TKR) using the ORIGIN® prosthesis. METHODS: This was a prospective study conducted at a University Hospital from January 15, 2019, to April 30, 2021. The study included patients planned for an ORIGIN® CIM TKR procedure. Exclusion criteria included revision surgery, severe deformity, stiffness, or laxity. Evaluations were carried out using computed tomography scans performed 8 weeks preoperatively and 6 weeks postoperatively. The primary outcome measurements were the preoperative, planned, and postoperative CT scan alignment measurements including the Hip-Knee-Ankle (HKA) angle, mechanical Medial Distal Femoral articular surface Angle (mMDFA, distal alpha angle), Posterior Distal femoral articular surface angle (PDFA, posterior alpha angle), mechanical Medial Proximal Tibial articular surface Angle (mMPTA, beta angle) and posterior proximal tibial angle (PPTA). Secondary outcomes included the accuracy of implant positioning with percentage of outliers at 2° and 3° RESULTS: The study encompassed 51 knees from 50 patients with mean age of 68.1 (SD = 8.89). The overall HKA angle deviated by -0.93° [95% CI: -1.45; -0.43], and the PDFA angle by -0.61° [95% CI: -1.07; -0.15], while the mMPTA exceeded planned values by 1.00° [95% CI: 0.57; 1.43]. The 3° outliers rate ranged from 3.9% for the mMPTA to 7.8% for the HKA alignment, with no outliers in mMDFA and PPTA. Similarly, the 2° outliers rate ranged from 15.7% for both the PDFA angle and mMPTA to 19.6% for the HKA alignment. The Bland-Altman plots further emphasized the precision of planned and post-operative angles across all measurements. CONCLUSION: The CIM TKR showed high accuracy and reproducibility, closely matching preoperative planning. The weakest accuracy at 3°-outliers is in the reproduction of the HKA alignment at 92.2% (range for all angle: 92.2-100%). Similarly, the weakest accuracy at 2°-outliers is in the reproduction of the HKA alignment at 80.4% (range for all angles: 80.4-92.2%).