Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of custom cutting guides based on three-dimensional computerized CT-scan planning and a conventional ancillary system based on two-dimensional planning in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Incorrect positioning of components during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) increases the risk of pain, instability, and early revision. The purpose of this study was to compare 3D planning-assisted and a conventional system for TKA positioning. We hypothesized that the use of three-dimensional CT-scan planning and custom cutting guides would increase the accuracy of component positioning.

Methods

A randomized, controlled, prospective study of two groups was performed. In one group, patient-specific custom cutting guides (PSCG) were used for component positioning based on 3D CT-scan planning. In the control group, TKA was performed with a conventional ancillary system. The components’ positioning angles were measured on 3D reconstructions. The main evaluation criterion was the percentage of outliers outside of a target zone of ± 3° for the coronal positioning of the femoral component.

Results

Eighty patients were included. The percentage of outliers for the femoral component was significantly lower in the 3D-guided group (1 patient) compared to the control group (7 patients p = 0.02). The coronal femoral angle was restored with greater accuracy in the 3D-assisted group (− 0.1° ± 1.4°) compared to the control group (1.6° ± 2.5°). Surgery was significantly shorter in the 3D group. The clinical outcomes were better in the 3D group at the two year follow-up with fewer failures and a lower standard deviation in IKS scores.

Conclusion

The use of a 3D planning and custom guides can improve TKA component positioning by increasing the accuracy of implants alignment and reducing the percentage of outliers. The same benefit was not demonstrated for the global knee alignment and the clinical scores with no indisputable clinical advantage for the PSCG.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Baker PN, Petheram T, Avery PJ, Gregg PJ, Deehan DJ (2012) Revision for unexplained pain following unicompartmental and total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94:e126. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.K.00791

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Thiele K, Perka C, Matziolis G, Mayr HO, Sostheim M, Hube R (2015) Current failure mechanisms after knee arthroplasty have changed: polyethylene wear is less common in revision surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97:715–720. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.M.01534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hardeman F, Londers J, Favril A, Witvrouw E, Bellemans J, Victor J (2012) Predisposing factors which are relevant for the clinical outcome after revision total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:1049–1056. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-011-1624-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Boonen B, Schotanus MG, Kerens B, Hulsmans FJ, Tuinebreijer WE, Kort NP (2015) Patient-specific positioning guides for total knee arthroplasty: no significant difference between final component alignment and pre-operative digital plan except for tibial rotation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3661-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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-B:354–359. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.95B3.29903

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Matziolis G, Krocker D, Weiss U, Tohtz S, Perka C (2007) A prospective, randomized study of computer-assisted and conventional total knee arthroplasty. Three-dimensional evaluation of implant alignment and rotation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:236–243. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00386

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hamilton WG, Parks NL (2014) Patient-specific instrumentation does not shorten surgical time: a prospective, randomized trial. J Arthroplast 29:1508–1509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.01.029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Marimuthu K, Chen DB, Harris IA, Wheatley E, Bryant CJ, MacDessi SJ (2014) A multi-planar CT-based comparative analysis of patient-specific cutting guides with conventional instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 29:1138–1142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.12.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-2997-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Woolson ST, Harris AH, Wagner DW, Giori NJ (2014) Component alignment during total knee arthroplasty with use of standard or custom instrumentation: a randomized clinical trial using computed tomography for postoperative alignment measurement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96:366–372. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.01722

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Yau WP, Chiu KY, Zuo JL, Tang WM, Ng TP (2008) Computer navigation did not improve alignment in a lower-volume total knee practice. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:935–945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0144-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Roh YW, Kim TW, Lee S, Seong SC, Lee MC (2013) Is TKA using patient-specific instruments comparable to conventional TKA? A randomized controlled study of one system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:3988–3995. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-3206-1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Franceschi JP, Sbihi A, Computer Assisted Orthopedic Surgery F (2014) 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:S281–S286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2014.04.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 13–14

  15. Thienpont E, Schwab PE, Fennema P (2017) Efficacy of patient-specific instruments in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 99:521–530. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.00496

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. De Vloo R, Pellikaan P, Dhollander A, Vander Sloten J (2017) Three-dimensional analysis of accuracy of component positioning in total knee arthroplasty with patient specific and conventional instruments: a randomized controlled trial. Knee 24:1469–1477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2017.08.059

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Abane L, Zaoui A, Anract P, Lefevre N, Herman S, Hamadouche M (2018) Can a single-use and patient-specific instrumentation be reliably used in primary total knee arthroplasty? A multicenter controlled study. J Arthroplast 33:2111–2118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kosse NM, Heesterbeek PJC, Schimmel JJP, van Hellemondt GG, Wymenga AB, Defoort KC (2018) Stability and alignment do not improve by using patient-specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26:1792–1799. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4792-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Anderl W, Pauzenberger L, Kolblinger R, Kiesselbach G, Brandl G, Laky B, Kriegleder B, Heuberer P, Schwameis E (2016) Patient-specific instrumentation improved mechanical alignment, while early clinical outcome was comparable to conventional instrumentation in TKA. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24:102–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3345-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Keshmiri A, Maderbacher G, Baier C, Benditz A, Grifka J, Greimel F (2018) Kinematic alignment in total knee arthroplasty leads to a better restoration of patellar kinematics compared to mechanic alignment. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-5284-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. d'Amato M, Ensini A, Leardini A, Barbadoro P, Illuminati A, Belvedere C (2018) Conventional versus computer-assisted surgery in total knee arthroplasty: comparison at ten years follow-up. Int Orthop. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4114-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hôpitaux Universitaires La Pitié Salpêtrière-Charles Foix, AP-HP, F-75013, Paris, France

    Elhadi Sariali, Charles Kajetanek & Yves Catonné

  2. Laboratoire d’Imagerie Biomédicale, Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, CNRS, INSERM, F-75006, Paris, France

    Elhadi Sariali

  3. Hip and knee Arthroplasty Department, Pitié Salpêtrière Teaching Hospital, 47-83 Bd de l’Hôpital, 75013, Paris, France

    Elhadi Sariali

Authors
  1. Elhadi Sariali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Charles Kajetanek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yves Catonné
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elhadi Sariali.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

Intellectual property rights: royalties from Symbios SA.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the local ethical committee.

Informed consent

All of the patients provided informed consent to participate in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sariali, E., Kajetanek, C. & Catonné, Y. Comparison of custom cutting guides based on three-dimensional computerized CT-scan planning and a conventional ancillary system based on two-dimensional planning in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 43, 2529–2538 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-019-04357-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-019-04357-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation