Abstract
Purpose
Accurate component alignment in total knee replacement (TKR) is one of the important factors in determining long-term survivorship. This has been achieved by conventional jigs, computer-assisted technology (CAS) and more recently patient-specific instrumentation (PSI). The purpose of the current study was to investigate the in vivo accuracy of Trumatch™ PSI using validated pin-less computer navigation system.
Method
Twenty consecutive selected patients that fulfilled our inclusion/exclusion criteria underwent TKR using PSI. Coronal alignment, posterior slope, resection thickness and femoral sagittal alignment were recorded using pin-less navigation. The position of the actual cutting block was appropriately adjusted prior to proceeding to definitive resections.
Results
The coronal alignment using PSI without the assistance of navigation would have resulted in 14 (70 %) within ±3°, 11 (55 %) within ±2° and 6 (30 %) outside acceptable alignment. Thirty-five percentage of proposed femur sagittal alignment and 55 % of posterior tibial slope were achieved within ±3°. Components size was accurately predicted in 95 % of femurs and 90 % of tibia.
Conclusion
The purported advantages in restoring alignments using Trumatch™ PSI alone over standard equipment are debatable. However, it predicts sizing well, and femoral coronal alignment is reasonable. Combining Trumatch™ PSI with CAS will allow in vivo verification and necessary corrections.
Accurate component alignment in total knee replacement (TKR) is one of the important factors in determining long-term survivorship. This has been achieved by conventional jigs, computer-assisted technology (CAS) and more recently patient-specific instrumentation (PSI). The purpose of the current study was to investigate the in vivo accuracy of Trumatch™ PSI using validated pin-less computer navigation system.
Method
Twenty consecutive selected patients that fulfilled our inclusion/exclusion criteria underwent TKR using PSI. Coronal alignment, posterior slope, resection thickness and femoral sagittal alignment were recorded using pin-less navigation. The position of the actual cutting block was appropriately adjusted prior to proceeding to definitive resections.
Results
The coronal alignment using PSI without the assistance of navigation would have resulted in 14 (70 %) within ±3°, 11 (55 %) within ±2° and 6 (30 %) outside acceptable alignment. Thirty-five percentage of proposed femur sagittal alignment and 55 % of posterior tibial slope were achieved within ±3°. Components size was accurately predicted in 95 % of femurs and 90 % of tibia.
Conclusion
The purported advantages in restoring alignments using Trumatch™ PSI alone over standard equipment are debatable. However, it predicts sizing well, and femoral coronal alignment is reasonable. Combining Trumatch™ PSI with CAS will allow in vivo verification and necessary corrections.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 125-132 |
Number of pages | 8 |
Journal | European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology |
Volume | 27 |
Issue number | 1 |
Early online date | 7 Sep 2016 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Jan 2017 |