Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conventional instruments are more accurate for measuring the depth of the tibial cut than computer-assisted surgery in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective study

  • Knee Arthroplasty
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

The most commonly used tool for implant positioning are conventional instruments (CI) followed by computer-assisted surgery (CAS). A number of studies have investigated the cutting error of the tibial component when CAS is used, but most of them were focused on the cutting angles. The accuracy of CAS to determine the depth of the cut has not received much attention, even though implications are similar or worse, than with an angle mismatch.

Materials and methods

This was an ethics board approved, prospective study of 23 consecutive varus TKAs by a single surgeon. Implant positioning was performed using CAS; however, the depth of the tibial cut was determined with both CAS and CI. Targeted alignment was the mechanical axis and 3° of posterior slope. The planned and the achieved cut, as determined by CAS needed to match. The achieved cut was then measured using a caliper and compared to the depth of the cut as per CAS. Medial and lateral cuts were analyzed separately. Analysis of variance and Bland–Altman plots were used for the comparison.

Results

Mean medial navigated cut was 6.3 (± 2.2) mm, mean measured medial cut was 6.6 (± 2.3) mm. Mean lateral navigated cut was 8.9 (± 1.8) mm, mean measured lateral cut was 8.8 (± 1.5) mm. There was a statistical significance for both the medial (p < 0.001) and the lateral (p = 0.004) navigated and measured cuts.

Conclusions

The results of this study suggest that the tibial cut depth, measured by the navigation, does not match the actual bony cuts performed, even if a perfect cut was achieved in both sagittal and coronal plane. Surgeons should be aware of the measurement error in the navigation system and potentially add an additional step for verifying the achieved depth of the cut.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Beal MD, Delagramaticas D, Fitz D (2016) Improving outcomes in total knee arthroplasty—do navigation or customized implants have a role? J Orthop Surg Res. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-016-0396-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. National Joint Replacement Registry AOA (2019) 2019 Hip, Knee and Shoulder Arthroplasty Annual Report

  3. Wernecke GC, Taylor S, Wernecke P et al (2017) Resection accuracy of patient-specific cutting guides in total knee replacement. ANZ J Surg 87:921–924. https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.14143

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Scholes C, Sahni V, Lustig S et al (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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2670-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lustig S, Scholes CJ, Oussedik SI et al (2013) Unsatisfactory accuracy as determined by computer navigation of VISIONAIRE patient-specific instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 28:469–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2012.07.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schlatterer B, Linares J-M, Chabrand P et al (2014) Influence of the optical system and anatomic points on computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 100:395–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2013.12.029

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hasegawa M, Yoshida K, Wakabayashi H, Sudo A (2013) Cutting and implanting errors in minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty using a navigation system. Int Orthop 37:27–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1688-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bugbee WD, Kermanshahi AY, Munro MM et al (2014) Accuracy of a hand-held surgical navigation system for tibial resection in total knee arthroplasty. Knee 21:1225–1228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2014.09.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tsukeoka T, Tsuneizumi Y, Yoshino K (2019) An accelerometer-based navigation did not improve the femoral component positioning compared to a modified conventional technique of pre-operatively planned placement of intramedullary rod in total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 139:561–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-019-03147-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tsukeoka T, Tsuneizumi Y, Yoshino K, Suzuki M (2018) Case-related factors affecting cutting errors of the proximal tibia in total knee arthroplasty assessed by computer navigation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26:1493–1499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4397-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wernecke GC, Harrris IA, Seeto BG et al (2016) Normal femorotibial rotational alignment and implications for total knee arthroplasty: an MRI analysis. HSS J 12:216–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-016-9491-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Zimmer® NexGen® CR-Flex Surgical Technique. https://www.zimmer.com/content/dam/zimmer-web/documents/en-US/pdf/surgical-techniques/knee/zimmer-nexgen-cr-flex-lps-flex-knee-surgical-technique-posterior-referencing-instrumentation-surgical-technique.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb 2020

  14. Howell SM (2019) Calipered kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty: an accurate technique that improves patient outcomes and implant survival. Orthopedics 42:126–135. https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20190424-02

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Berend ME, Ritter MA, Meding JB et al (2004) Tibial component failure mechanisms in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000148578.22729.0e

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mitsuhashi S, Akamatsu Y, Kobayashi H et al (2018) Combined CT-based and image-free navigation systems in TKA reduces postoperative outliers of rotational alignment of the tibial component. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138:259–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2837-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Burnett RSJ, Barrack RL (2013) Computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty is currently of no proven clinical benefit: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:264–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2528-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Panjwani TR, Mullaji A, Doshi K, Thakur H (2019) Comparison of functional outcomes of computer-assisted vs conventional total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of high-quality, prospective studies. J Arthroplasty 34:586–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.11.028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rice DA, Kluger MT, McNair PJ et al (2018) Persistent postoperative pain after total knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study of potential risk factors. Br J Anaesth 121:804–812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2018.05.070

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bierke S, Petersen W (2017) Influence of anxiety and pain catastrophizing on the course of pain within the first year after uncomplicated total knee replacement: a prospective study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137:1735–1742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2797-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Dunbar MJ, Richardson G, Robertsson O (2013) I can’t get no satisfaction after my total knee replacement: rhymes and reasons. Bone Joint J 95-B:148–152. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.95B11.32767

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Clement ND, Walker LC, Bardgett M et al (2018) Patient age of less than 55 years is not an independent predictor of functional improvement or satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138:1755–1763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-018-3041-7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sheth NP, Bonadio MB, Demange MK (2017) Bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 25:348–357. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-15-00660

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kamath AF, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD (2015) Porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty: a five to nine-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97:216–223. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.N.00540

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Loh B, Chen JY, Yew AKS et al (2017) The accuracy of a hand-held navigation system in total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137:381–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-016-2612-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Singh AK, Nedopil AJ, Howell SM, Hull ML (2018) Does alignment of the limb and tibial width determine relative narrowing between compartments when planning mechanically aligned TKA? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138:91–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2824-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Yamamura K, Minoda Y, Mizokawa S et al (2017) Novel alignment measurement technique for total knee arthroplasty using patient specific instrumentation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137:401–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2628-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kwon OR, Kang KT, Son J et al (2017) Patient-specific instrumentation development in TKA: 1st and 2nd generation designs in comparison with conventional instrumentation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137:111–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-016-2618-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Stryker® OrthoMap® Precision Knee Product Guide. https://www.strykermeded.com/media/2007/navigation-orthomap-precision-knee-surgical-technique.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb 2020

  30. Yau WP, Chiu KY (2008) Cutting errors in total knee replacement: assessment by computer assisted surgery. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16:670–673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-008-0550-x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ulivi M, Orlandini LC, Meroni V et al (2019) Intraoperative validation of bone cut accuracy of a pinless smart touch-screen navigation system device in total knee arthroplasty. Int J Med Robot. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.2030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Thienpont E, Schwab PE, Cornu O et al (2017) Bone morphotypes of the varus and valgus knee. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137:393–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2626-x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sydney Orthopaedic Research Institute, 445 Victoria Ave, Chatswood, 2067, Australia

    Antonio Klasan, Sven Edward Putnis, Samuel Grasso, Thomas Neri & Myles Raphael Coolican

Authors
  1. Antonio Klasan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sven Edward Putnis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Samuel Grasso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thomas Neri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Myles Raphael Coolican
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonio Klasan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Klasan, A., Putnis, S.E., Grasso, S. et al. Conventional instruments are more accurate for measuring the depth of the tibial cut than computer-assisted surgery in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 140, 801–806 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03403-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03403-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation