Computed tomography is not necessary to assess rotation of the femoral component in navigation-assisted total knee replacement

Appropriate determination of the surgical transepicondylar axis can be achieved following distal femur resection in navigation-assisted total knee arthroplasty

Background

Many surgeons have determined the surgical transepicondylar axis (sTEA) after distal femur resection in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, in most navigation systems, the registration of the sTEA precedes the distal femur resection. This sequential difference can influence the accuracy of intraoperative determination for sTEA when considering the proximal location of the anatomical references for sTEA and the arthritic environment. We compared the accuracy and precision in determinations of the sTEA between before and after distal femur resection during navigation-assisted TKA.

Methods

Ninety TKAs with Attune posterior-stabilized prostheses were performed under imageless navigation. The sTEA was registered before distal femur resection, then reassessed and adjusted after distal resection. The femoral component was implanted finally according to the sTEA determined after distal femur resection. Computed tomography (CT) was performed postoperatively to analyze the true sTEA (the line connecting the tip of the lateral femoral epicondyle to the lowest point of the medial femoral epicondylar sulcus on axial CT images) and femoral component rotation (FCR) axis. The FCR angle after distal femur resection (FCRA-aR) was defined as the angle between the FCR axis and true sTEA on CT images. The FCR angle before distal resection (FCRA-bR) could be presumed to be the value of FCRA-aR minus the difference between the intraoperatively determined sTEAs before and after distal resection as indicated by the navigation system. It was considered that the FCRA-bR or FCRA-aR represented the differences between the sTEA determined before or after distal femur resection and the true sTEA, respectively.

Results

The FCRA-bR was −1.3 ± 2.4° and FCRA-aR was 0.3 ± 1.7° (p < 0.001). The range of FCRA-bR was from −6.6° to 4.1° and that of FCRA-aR was from −2.7° to 3.3°. The proportion of appropriate FCRA (≤ ±3°) was significantly higher after distal femur resection than that before resection (91.1% versus 70%; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The FCR was more appropriate when the sTEA was determined after distal femur resection than before resection in navigation-assisted TKA. The reassessment and adjusted registration of sTEA after distal femur resection could improve the rotational alignment of the femoral component in navigation-assisted TKA.

Level of evidence

IV.

Intra- and postoperative assessment of femoral component rotation in total knee arthroplasty: an EKA knee expert group clinical review

PURPOSE

Malrotation of the femoral component after primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is one of the most important problems leading to painful TKA requiring revision surgery.

METHODS

A comprehensive systematic review of the literature was performed to present current evidence on how to optimally place the femoral component in TKA. Several landmarks and techniques for intraoperative determination of femoral component placement and examination of their reliability were analyzed.

RESULTS

2806 articles were identified and 21 met the inclusion criteria. As there is no unquestioned gold standard, numerous approaches are possible which come along with specific advantages and disadvantages. In addition, imaging modalities and measurements regarding postoperative femoral component rotation were also investigated. Femoral component rotation measurements on three-dimensional (3D) reconstructed computerised tomography (CT) images displayed intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) above 0.85, significantly better than those performed in radiographics or two-dimensional (2D) CT images. Thus, 3D CT images to accurately evaluate the femoral prosthetic component rotation are recommended, especially in unsatisfied patients after TKA.

CONCLUSION

The EKA Femoral Rotation Focus Group has not identified a single best reference method to determine femoral component rotation, but surgeons mostly prefer the measured resection technique using at least two landmarks for cross-checking the rotation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Comparison between navigated reported position and postoperative computed tomography to evaluate accuracy in a robotic navigation system in total knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Computer navigation increases reproducibility compared to non-navigated total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Robotics navigation is a branch of computer navigation technology that might further improve accuracy of implant placement. The aim of this study is to assess the accuracy achieved in TKA with a robotic navigation system.

METHODS

One hundred seventy three knees. System studied: Omni navigation System (OMNI, Raynham, MA). Navigated femoral and tibial cuts were compared to postoperative computed tomography (CT). Measurements reviewed: femoral coronal alignment (FCA), femoral sagittal alignment (FSA), femoral rotational alignment (FRA), tibial coronal alignment (TCA), tibial sagittal alignment (TSA) and hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle. Statistical analysis was made using R.

RESULTS

The mean differences between the navigated reported and the CT positions were: FCA: 0.1 ± 1.2° more varus (P = 0.58), FSA: 1.5 ± 0.3° more flexed (P < 0.001), FRA: 0.0 ± 1.7° (P = 0.93), TCA: 0.7 ± 1.1° more varus (P < 0.001), TSA: -1.3 ± 1.5 more negative slope (P < 0.001), HKA angle: 0.4 ± 2.4 more varus (P < 0.049). The percentages of concordance inside a three degree difference were: FCA: 98% (169 knees), FSA: 100% (173 knees), FRA: 94% (162 knees), TCA: 99% (171 knees), TSA: 93% (161 knees) and HKA angle: 83% (144 knees).

CONCLUSIONS

The current study showed that the robotic navigation system studied is highly accurate regarding final implant positioning for FCA, FRA and TCA. It has less accuracy in FSA, TSA and the HKA angle.