Clinical impact of component placement in manually instrumented total knee arthroplasty : a systematic review

Does referencing system affect the selection of implant size, position and gap balance in total knee arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND

(1) To evaluate if referencing system affects selection of implant size, position, and gap balance in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with the use of contemporary implant designs and (2) to describe the authors' intraoperative sizing strategy using anterior referencing (AR) and posterior referencing (PR) systems.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of 270 consecutive patients (397 knees) who underwent primary TKA with an AR or PR system. Selection of implant size, mediolateral and anteroposterior alignment of the femoral component, as well as gaps were compared between groups.

RESULTS

In the AR group, more patients had femoral components which were upsized or downsized compared to those in the PR group (29.5% vs 12.0% respectively) and in patients who underwent bilateral TKA, 49.4% of those in the AR group had femur component size asymmetry. The AR group had better medio-lateral (ML) fit over the distal cutting surface area, smaller change in anterior offset but higher incidence of anterior notching when compared to the PR group. Posterior condylar offset (PCO) was restored in both groups and gap differences in flexion-extension and ML were comparable. There was also no difference in clinical scores and ROM between groups at 2-years follow-up.

CONCLUSION

In this study, conventional implications related to referencing system were not observed. In practice, AR systems can restore PCO while PR systems do not result in increased anterior notching or anterior overstuffing. Differences observed in this study are most likely related to implant design specifics and surgical technique.

Robotic Arthroplasty Clinical and cost Effectiveness Randomised controlled trial (RACER-knee): a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Robotic-assisted knee replacement systems have been introduced to healthcare services worldwide in an effort to improve clinical outcomes for people, although high-quality evidence that they are clinically, or cost-effective remains sparse. Robotic-arm systems may improve surgical accuracy and could contribute to reduced pain, improved function and lower overall cost of total knee replacement (TKR) surgery. However, TKR with conventional instruments may be just as effective and may be quicker and cheaper. There is a need for a robust evaluation of this technology, including cost-effectiveness analyses using both within-trial and modelling approaches. This trial will compare robotic-assisted against conventional TKR to provide high-quality evidence on whether robotic-assisted knee replacement is beneficial to patients and cost-effective for healthcare systems.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Robotic Arthroplasty Clinical and cost Effectiveness Randomised controlled trial-Knee is a multicentre, participant-assessor blinded, randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted TKR compared with TKR using conventional instruments. A total of 332 participants will be randomised (1:1) to provide 90% power for a 12-point difference in the primary outcome measure; the Forgotten Joint Score at 12 months postrandomisation. Allocation concealment will be achieved using computer-based randomisation performed on the day of surgery and methods for blinding will include sham incisions for marker clusters and blinded operation notes. The primary analysis will adhere to the intention-to-treat principle. Results will be reported in line with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. A parallel study will collect data on the learning effects associated with robotic-arm systems.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial has been approved by an ethics committee for patient participation (East Midlands-Nottingham 2 Research Ethics Committee, 29 July 2020. NRES number: 20/EM/0159). All results from the study will be disseminated using peer-reviewed publications, presentations at international conferences, lay summaries and social media as appropriate.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN27624068.

The coronal alignment technique impacts deviation from native knee anatomy after total knee arthroplasty

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to analyze and quantify the changes in native coronal alignment of a population of TKA patients according to different alignment goals.

METHODS

Five hundred and twenty TKAs were analyzed. The following angles were measured using an image-free navigation system prior to prosthetic implantation: medial femorotibial mechanical angle without stress and with maximum manual stress to reduce the deformity, medial distal femoral mechanical angle, medial proximal tibial mechanical angle. The native angles were derived from the osteoarthritic knee angles using a validated correction technique, and the overall, femoral and tibial coronal phenotypes were defined. Five different coronal alignment techniques were simulated: mechanical (MA), restricted mechanical (RMA), anatomical (AA), kinematic (KA) and restricted kinematic (RKA). The overall, femoral and tibial coronal phenotypes were compared before and after TKA. The primary endpoint was the binary criterion of whether or not TKA restored the natural overall phenotype. Secondary endpoints were the binary criteria of whether or not the natural femoral and tibial phenotypes were restored by TKA. The rates of restored and non restored phenotypes were compared with a Chi-square test at a 0.05 level of significance, with post hoc tests between all pairs of techniques at a 0.01 level of significance.

RESULTS

The overall phenotype was restored significantly differently by the five alignment techniques: 15% for MA, 23% for RMA, 2% for AA, 100% for KA and 79% for RKA (p < 0.001). There was a significant difference between each of the technique pairs (p < 0.01 to p < 0.001), except for the mechanical alignment-restricted mechanical alignment pair. The femoral phenotype was restored significantly differently by the five alignment techniques: 37% for MA, 58% for RMA, 19% for AA, 100% for KA and 85% for RKA (p < 0.001). The tibial phenotype was restored significantly differently by the five alignment techniques: 36% for MA, 36% for RMA, 17% for AA, 100% for KA and 88% for RKA (p < 0.001). There was a significant difference between each pair of techniques for both femoral and tibial phenotypes (p < 0.01 to p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Except for the kinematic alignment technique, the various alignment techniques induce significant changes in the pre-arthritic anatomy of the TKA patient. The surgeon must be aware of these modifications. The clinical relevance of this alteration still needs to be defined.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Implant Malalignment may be a Risk Factor for Poor Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures (PROMs) Following Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA)

BACKGROUND

Implant malalignment may be a risk factor for poor patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) following total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

METHODS

Postoperative surveys were administered to assess PROMs regarding satisfaction, pain, and function in 262 patients who underwent surgery at 4 centers in the U.S. and U.K (average age, 67.2) at a mean 5.5 years after primary TKA. Postoperative distal femoral angle (DFA), proximal tibial angle (PTA), and posterior tibial slope angle (PSA) were radiographically measured, and outliers were recorded. PROMs were compared between patients with aligned versus malaligned knees using univariate analysis.

RESULTS

Patients with DFA, PTA, and PSA outliers were more likely to experience similar or decreased activity levels postoperatively than patients with no alignment outliers, as were patients with 1 or 2 outliers of any kind (P < .05). Patients with DFA, PTA, and PSA outliers were significantly more likely to be dissatisfied with their ability to perform activities of daily living (ADLs), as were patients with 1 or 2 outliers of any kind (P < .05). Patients with DFA and PSA outliers were more likely to be dissatisfied with their degree of pain relief, as were patients with 2 outliers of any kind (P < .05). Finally, patients with DFA and PSA outliers, as well as those with 1 outlier of any kind, were more likely to be dissatisfied with their overall knee function (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

DFA, PTA, and PSA outliers represent a significant risk factor for decreased satisfaction with activities of daily living(ADLs), pain relief, and knee function, as well as decreased activity levels.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.