Comparison of post-operative three-dimensional and two-dimensional evaluation of component position for total knee arthroplasty
2
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
초록
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the post-operative three-dimensional (3D) femoral and tibial component positions in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) by the same co-ordinates’ system as for pre-operative planning and to compare it with a two-dimensional (2D) evaluation.Sixty-five primary TKAs due to osteoarthritis were included. A computed tomography (CT) scan of the femur and tibia was obtained and pre-operative 3D planning was performed. Then, 3D and 2D post-operative evaluations of the component positions were performed. KneeCAS (LEXI, Inc., Tokyo, Japan), a lower-extremity alignment assessment system, was used for the 3D post-operative evaluation. Standard short-knee radiographs were used for the 2D post-operative evaluation. Differences between the pre-operative planning and post-operative coronal and sagittal alignment of components were investigated and compared with the results of the 3D and 2D evaluations. According to the 3D evaluation, the difference between the pre-operative planning and actual post-operative sagittal alignment of the femoral component and the coronal and sagittal alignments of the tibial component were 2.6° ± 1.8°, 2.2° ± 1.8° and 3.2° ± 2.4°, respectively. Using the 2D evaluation, they were 1.9° ± 1.5°, 1.3° ± 1.2° and 1.8° ± 1.4°, making the difference in 3D evaluation significantly higher ( p = 0.013, = 0.003 and < 0.001). For the sagittal alignment of the femoral component and the coronal and sagittal alignment of the tibial component, the outlier (> ± 3°) ratio for the 3D evaluation was also significantly higher than that of the 2D evaluation ( p < 0.001, = 0.009 and < 0.001). The difference between the pre-operative planning and post-operative component alignment in the 3D evaluation is significantly higher than that of the 2D, even if the same cases have been evaluated. Two-dimensional evaluation may mask or underestimate the post-operative implant malposition. Three-dimensional evaluation using the same co-ordinates’ system as for pre-operative planning is necessary to accurately evaluate the post-operative component position.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the post-operative three-dimensional (3D) femoral and tibial component positions in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) by the same co-ordinates’ system as for pre-operative planning and to compare it with a two-dimensional (2D) evaluation.Sixty-five primary TKAs due to osteoarthritis were included. A computed tomography (CT) scan of the femur and tibia was obtained and pre-operative 3D planning was performed. Then, 3D and 2D post-operative evaluations of the component positions were performed. KneeCAS (LEXI, Inc., Tokyo, Japan), a lower-extremity alignment assessment system, was used for the 3D post-operative evaluation. Standard short-knee radiographs were used for the 2D post-operative evaluation. Differences between the pre-operative planning and post-operative coronal and sagittal alignment of components were investigated and compared with the results of the 3D and 2D evaluations. According to the 3D evaluation, the difference between the pre-operative planning and actual post-operative sagittal alignment of the femoral component and the coronal and sagittal alignments of the tibial component were 2.6° ± 1.8°, 2.2° ± 1.8° and 3.2° ± 2.4°, respectively. Using the 2D evaluation, they were 1.9° ± 1.5°, 1.3° ± 1.2° and 1.8° ± 1.4°, making the difference in 3D evaluation significantly higher ( p = 0.013, = 0.003 and < 0.001). For the sagittal alignment of the femoral component and the coronal and sagittal alignment of the tibial component, the outlier (> ± 3°) ratio for the 3D evaluation was also significantly higher than that of the 2D evaluation ( p < 0.001, = 0.009 and < 0.001). The difference between the pre-operative planning and post-operative component alignment in the 3D evaluation is significantly higher than that of the 2D, even if the same cases have been evaluated. Two-dimensional evaluation may mask or underestimate the post-operative implant malposition. Three-dimensional evaluation using the same co-ordinates’ system as for pre-operative planning is necessary to accurately evaluate the post-operative component position.
참고문헌 (30)
- Abu-Rajab RB, "Hip-knee-ankle radiographs are more appropriate for assessment of post-operative mechanical alignment of total knee arthroplasties than standard AP knee radiographs", J Arthroplast, 30(4), pp.695~700 (2015)[DOI]
- Hirschmann MT, "The position and orientation of total knee replacement components:a comparison of conventional radiographs, transverse 2D-CT slices and 3DCT reconstruction", J Bone Joint Surg Br, 93(5), pp.629~633 (2011)
- Holme TJ, "Quantification of the difference between 3D CT and plain radiograph for measurement of the position of medial unicompartmental knee replacements", Knee, 18(5), pp.300~305 (2011)[DOI]
- Ishida K, "Evaluation of implant alignment in navigated unicompartmental knee arthroplasty : a comparison of 2D and 3D imaging", Acta Orthop Belg, 81(4), pp.654~661 (2015)
- Park A, "The inadequacy of short knee radiographs in evaluating coronal alignment after total knee arthroplasty", J Arthroplast, 31(4), pp.878~882 (2016)[DOI]
- Kobayashi K, "Automated image registration for assessing three-dimensional alignment of entire lower extremity and implant position using bi-plane radiography", J Biomech, 42(16), pp.2818~2822 (2009)[DOI]
- Sato T, "Three-dimensional lower extremity alignment assessment system: application to evaluation of component position after total knee arthroplasty", J Arthroplast, 19(5), pp.620~628 (2004)[DOI]
- Tanifuji O, "Three-dimensional in-vivo motion analysis of normal knees employing transept axis as an evaluation parameter", Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 21(10), pp.2301~2308 (2013)[DOI]
- Tanifuji O, "Three-dimensional in-vivo motion analysis of normal knees using single-plane fluoroscopy", J Orthop Sci, 16(6), pp.710~718 (2011)[DOI]
- Akagi M, "An anteroposterior axis of the tibia for total knee arthroplasty", Clin Orthop Relat Res, 420, pp.213~219 (2004)[DOI]
- Mochizuki T, "Sex differences in femoral deformity determined using three-dimensional assessment for osteoarthritic knees", Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 25(2), pp.468~476 (2017)[DOI]
- Mochizuki T, "Extrinsic factors as component positions to bone and intrinsic factors affecting postoperative rotational limb alignment in total knee arthroplasty", J Arthroplast, 33(7), pp.2100~2110 (2018)[DOI]
- Takagi S, "Alignment in the transverse plane, but not sagittal or coronal plane, affects the risk of recurrent patella dislocation", Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 26(10), pp.2891~2898 (2018)[DOI]
- Katsumi R, "Contribution of sex and body constitution to three-dimensional lower extremity alignment for healthy, elderly, non-obese humans in a Japanese population", J Exp Orthop, 5(1), pp.32~ (2018)[DOI]
- Ewald FC, "The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system", Clin Orthop Relat Res, 248, pp.9~12 (1989)
- Cheng T, "Does computer-assisted surgery improve postoperative leg alignment and implant positioning following total knee arthroplasty? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials?", Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 20(7), pp.1307~1322 (2012)[DOI]
- Abane L, "A comparison of patient-specific and conventional instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty: a multicentre randomised controlled trial", Bone Joint J, 97-B(1), pp.56~63 (2015)[DOI]
- Boonen B, "Intra-operative results and radiological outcome of conventional and patient-specific surgery in total knee arthroplasty: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial", Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 21(10), pp.2206~2212 (2013)[DOI]
- Mason JB, "Meta-analysis of alignment outcomes in computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty surgery", J Arthroplast, 22(8), pp.1097~1106 (2007)[DOI]
- Ng VY, "Improved accuracy of alignment with patient-specific positioning guides compared with manual instrumentation in TKA", Clin Orthop Relat Res, 470(1), pp.99~107 (2012)[DOI]
- Parratte S, "Rotation in total knee arthroplasty: no difference between patientspecific and conventional instrumentation", Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 21(10), pp.2213~2219 (2013)[DOI]
- Roh YW, "Is TKA using patientspecific instruments comparable to Conventional TKA? A randomized controlled study of one system", Clin Orthop Relat Res, 471(12), pp.3988~3995 (2013)[DOI]
- Bugbee WD, "Accuracy of implant placement utilizing customized patient instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty", Adv Orthop, 2013, pp.891210~ (2013)
- Franceschi JP, "Computer assisted orthopedic surgery –France (CAOS – France). 3D templating and patient-specific cutting guides (Knee-Plan) in total knee arthroplasty: postoperative CT-based assessment of implant positioning", Orthop Traumatol Surg Res, 100(6 Suppl), pp.S281~S286 (2014)[DOI]
- Yoshino K, "Intra- and interobserver reliability and agreement in threedimensional computed tomography measurements of component positions after total knee arthroplasty", Knee, 26(5), pp.1102~1110 (2019)[DOI]
- Ng VY, "Comparison of custom to standard TKA instrumentation with computed tomography", Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 22(8), pp.1833~1842 (2014)[DOI]
- Mizu-Uchi H, "Three-dimensional analysis of computed tomography-based navigation system for total knee arthroplasty : the accuracy of computed tomographybased navigation system", J Arthroplast, 24(7), pp.1103~1110 (2009)[DOI]
- Djahani O, "Systematic analysis of painful total knee prosthesis, a diagnostic algorithm", Arch Bone Jt Surg, 1(2), pp.48~52 (2013)
- Erivan R, "Epidemiology of painful knee after total knee arthroplasty in a tertiary care center : assessment by decision tree", Knee, 27(3), pp.1049~1056 (2020)[DOI]
- Young SW, "Unexplained pain following total knee arthroplasty : Is rotational malalignment the problem?", Knee, 25(2), pp.329~334 (2018)[DOI]