Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Assessment of patient-specific instrumentation precision through bone resection measurements

  • Knee
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

In the present study, the precision of two patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) systems for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) was evaluated by comparing bony resection thicknesses of the pre-operative PSI planning and intra-operative measurements by a vernier calliper. It was hypothesized that the data provided by pre-operative planning were accurate within ±2 mm of the bone resection thickness measured intra-operatively.

Methods

Forty-one patient-specific TKAs were examined: 25 performed with Visionaire® technology and 16 with OtisMed® system. PSI accuracy was analysed comparing the resected bone thicknesses in the femoral and tibial cuts with pre-operatively planned resections. To determine pre-operative planning precision, the thickness values reported by the PSI planning were subtracted from the values reported intra-operatively by the calliper.

Results

The mean absolute differences between pre-operatively planned resections and corresponding intra-operative thickness measurements ranged from a minimum of 2.6 mm (SD 0.8) to a maximum of 3.6 mm (SD 1.3) in all three anatomical planes in both groups. In every plane, the mean absolute discrepancies between planned resections and measured cuts differed significantly from zero (p < 0.0001). The proportion of differences within ±2 mm between intra-operative measured resections and planned PSI cuts occurred in more than 90 % of the cohort for femoral distal resections. Less precision was reported for the femoral posterior medial cuts (70.7 % within ±2 mm) and the tibial cuts (70.7 % on the medial, 75.6 % on the lateral side). Prosthetic component alignment on the coronal and transverse planes resulted in considerable deviations from the pre-operative planning.

Conclusion

The two examined PSI technologies were accurate in femoral distal cuts, determining acceptable femoral component placement on the coronal plane. Posterior femoral and tibial cuts were less precise. Deviations from the pre-operative resection planning were reported in every plane. Inaccuracy was explained by ambiguous custom-made jigs placement on the bony surface.

Level of evidence

III.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM, Mahomed NN, Charron KD (2010) Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not? Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:57–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Catani F, Biasca N, Ensini A, Leardini A, Bianchi L, Digennaro V, Giannini S (2008) Alignment deviations between bone resection and final implant positioning in computer-navigated total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90(4):765–771

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Chareancholvanich K, Narkbunnam R, Pornrattanamaneewong C (2013) A prospective randomised controlled study of patient-specific cutting guides compared with conventional instrumentation in total knee replacement. Bone Joint J 95:354–359

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Choong PF, Dowsey MM, Stoney JD (2009) Does accurate anatomical alignment result in better function and quality of life? Comparing conventional and computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 24:560–569

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Conteduca F, Iorio R, Mazza D, Caperna L, Bolle G, Argento G, Ferretti A (2013) Evaluation of the accuracy of a patient-specific instrumentation by navigation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21:2194–2199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ensini A, Timoncini A, Cenni F, Belvedere C, Fusai F, Leardini A, Giannini S (2014) Intra- and post-operative accuracy assessments of two different patient-specific instrumentation systems for total knee replacement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22:621–629

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fang DM, Ritter MA, Davis KE (2009) Coronal alignment in total knee arthroplasty: just how important is it? J Arthroplasty 24(6 Suppl):39–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Goyal N, Stulberg SD (2015) Evaluating the precision of preoperative planning in patient specific instrumentation: can a single MRI yield different preoperative plans? J Arthroplasty 30(7):1250–1253

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hafez MA, Chelule KL, Seedhom BB, Sherman KP (2006) Computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty using patient-specific templating. Clin Orthop Relat Res 444:184–192

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Heyse TJ, Tibesku CO (2014) Improved femoral component rotation in TKA using patient-specific instrumentation. Knee 21:268–271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hirschmann MT, Knala P, Amsler F, Iranpour F, Friederich NF, Cobb JP (2011) The position and orientation of total knee replacement components: a comparison of conventional radiographs, transverse 2D-CT slices and 3D-CT reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(5):629–633

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jenny JY, Boeri C, Picard F, Leitner F (2004) Reproducibility of intra-operative measurements of the mechanical axes of the lower limb during total knee replacement with a non-image-based navigation system. Comput Aided Surg 9(4):161–165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Koch PP, Muller D, Pisan M, Fucentese SF (2013) Radiographic accuracy in TKA with a CT-based patient-specific cutting block technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21(10):2200–2205

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Longstaff LM, Sloan K, Stamp N, Scaddan M, Beaver R (2009) Good alignment after total knee arthroplasty leads to faster rehabilitation and better function. J Arthroplasty 24:570–578

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lustig S, Scholes CJ, Oussedik SI, Kinzel V, Coolican MRJ, Parker DA (2013) Unsatisfactory accuracy as determined by computer navigation of VISIONAIRE patient-specific instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 28(3):469–473

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mahfouz M, Abdel Fatah EE, Bowers LS, Scuderi G (2012) Three-dimensional morphology of the knee reveals ethnic differences. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(1):172–185

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Noble JW Jr, Moore CA, Liu N (2012) The value of patient-matched instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 27(1):153–155

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Nogler M, Hozack W, Collopy D, Mayr E, Deirmengian G, Sekyra K (2012) Alignment for total knee replacement: a comparison of kinematic axis versus mechanical axis techniques. A cadaver study. Int Orthop 36:2249–2253

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Nunley RM, Ellison BS, Zhu J, Ruh Barrack RL (2012) Do patient-specific guides improve coronal alignment in total knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:895–902

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Otani T, Whiteside LA, White SE (1993) Cutting errors in preparation of the femoral components in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 8(5):503–510

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Parratte S, Blanc G, Boussermart T, Ollivier M, Le Corroller T, Argenson JN (2013) Rotation in total knee arthroplasty: no difference between patient-specific and conventional instrumentation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21(10):2213–2219

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Scholes C, Sahni V, Lustig S, Parker DA, Coolican MRJ (2014) Patient-specific instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty does not match the pre-operative plan as assessed by intra-operative computer-assisted navigation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22:660–665

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Stoeckl B, Nogler M, Krismer M, Beimel C, de la Barrera JL, Kessler O (2006) Reliability of the transepicondylar axis as an anatomical landmark in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 21(6):878–882

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Thienpont E, Schwab PE, Fennema P (2014) A systematic review and meta-analysis of patient-specific instrumentation for improving alignment of the components in total knee replacement. Bone Joint J 96:1052–1061

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Victor J, Dujardin J, Vandenneucker H, Arnout N, Bellemans J (2014) Patient-specific guides do not improve accuracy in total knee arthroplasty. a prospective randomized controlled trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:263–271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Victor J, Van Doninck D, Labey L, Innocenti B, Parizel PM, Bellemans J (2009) How precise can bony landmarks be determined on a CT scan of the knee? Knee 16(5):358–365

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Yue B, Varadarajan KM, Ai S, Tang T, Rubash HE, Li G (2011) Differences of knee anthropometry between Chinese and white men and women. J Arthroplasty 26(1):124–130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Policlinico di Modena, University of Modena and Reggio-Emilia, via del Pozzo 71, 41124, Modena, Italy

    F. Zambianchi, V. Digennaro, A. Marcovigi, R. Mugnai, F. Fiacchi, D. Sandoni & F. Catani

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Ospedale Santa Maria delle Croci, Azienda USL di Ravenna, Ravenna, Italy

    A. Colombelli & A. Belluati

Authors
  1. F. Zambianchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Colombelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. V. Digennaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Marcovigi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. R. Mugnai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. F. Fiacchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. D. Sandoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. A. Belluati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. F. Catani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. Zambianchi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zambianchi, F., Colombelli, A., Digennaro, V. et al. Assessment of patient-specific instrumentation precision through bone resection measurements. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25, 2841–2848 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3949-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3949-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation