Advertisement

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

, Volume 23, Issue 12, pp 3637–3645 | Cite as

Comparison between patient-specific instruments and conventional instruments and computer navigation in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial

  • Chun Hoi YanEmail author
  • Kwong Yuen Chiu
  • Fu Yuen Ng
  • Ping Keung Chan
  • Christian Xinshuo Fang
Knee

Abstract

Purpose

The current study investigated the accuracy in achieving proper lower limb alignment and individual component positions after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with 3 different instrumentation techniques. It was hypothesized that patient-specific instruments (PSI) would achieve more accurate lower limb alignment and component positions compared to conventional instruments (CON).

Methods

Ninety knees in 81 patients were randomized in 1:1:1 ratio into CON, computer navigation (NAV) and PSI groups to receive TKA. The surgical routines were standardized. The lower limb mechanical axis and individual component positions were assessed on standard radiographs. Tourniquet time, operation time and patients’ functional scores were documented.

Results

Conventional instruments and PSI were more likely to result in an excessively flexed femoral component (p = 0.001) compared to NAV. Number of outliers in postoperative lower limb alignment, and other components positions in the coronal and sagittal plane showed no statistically significant difference. The mean tourniquet time and operation time was significantly shorter in CON and PSI groups than NAV group (p < 0.001). Four early complications occurred in the PSI group (p = 0.015). At 3-month follow-up, there was no difference in terms of the knee range of motion and patients’ function among the 3 groups.

Conclusion

No significant radiological and clinical benefit could be demonstrated in using PSI over CON or NAV in TKA. Routine use of PSI is not recommended because of the extra cost and waiting time.

Level of evidence

I.

Keywords

Patient-specific instrumentation Total knee arthroplasty Computer navigation Lower limb alignment Component position Functional outcomes 

References

  1. 1.
    Bargren JH, Blaha JD, Freeman MA (1983) Alignment in total knee arthroplasty. Correlated biomechanical and clinical observations. Clin Orthop Relat Res 173:178–183PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barrack RL, Ruh EL, Williams BM, Ford AD, Foreman K, Nunley RM (2012) Patient specific cutting blocks are currently of no proven value. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94(11 Suppl A):95–99CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bathis H, Perlick L, Tingart M, Luring C, Zurakowski D, Grifka J (2004) Alignment in total knee arthroplasty. A comparison of computer-assisted surgery with the conventional technique. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86(5):682–687CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, Pitkin R, Rennie D, Schulz KF, Simel D, Stroup DF (1996) Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. JAMA 276(8):637–639CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1(8476):307–310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blumenfeld TJ (2013) CORR Insights (R): Is TKA using patient-specific instruments comparable to conventional TKA? A randomized controlled study of one system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(12):3996–3997PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boonen B, Schotanus MG, Kerens B, van der Weegen W, van Drumpt RA, Kort NP (2013) Intra-operative results and radiological outcome of conventional and patient-specific surgery in total knee arthroplasty: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21(10):2206–2212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chauhan SK, Scott RG, Breidahl W, Beaver RJ (2004) Computer-assisted knee arthroplasty versus a conventional jig-based technique. A randomised, prospective trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86(3):372–377CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen JY, Yeo SJ, Yew AK, Tay DK, Chia SL, Lo NN, Chin PL (2014) The radiological outcomes of patient-specific instrumentation versus conventional total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22(3):630–635CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chiu KY, Yau WP, Ng TP, Tang WM (2008) The accuracy of extramedullary guides for tibial component placement in total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 32(4):467–471PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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 10:2194–2199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cooke TD (2002) Definition of axial alignment of the lower extremity. J Bone Joint Surg 84-A(1):146–147PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cooke TD, Scudamore RA, Bryant JT, Sorbie C, Siu D, Fisher B (1991) A quantitative approach to radiography of the lower limb. Principles and applications. J Bone Joint Surg Br 73(5):715–720PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cooke TD, Sled EA, Scudamore RA (2007) Frontal plane knee alignment: a call for standardized measurement. J Rheumatol 34(9):1796–1801PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Daniilidis K, Tibesku CO (2013) Frontal plane alignment after total knee arthroplasty using patient-specific instruments. Int Orthop 37(1):45–50PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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(3):621–629CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fang DM, Ritter MA, Davis KE (2009) Coronal alignment in total knee arthroplasty: just how important is it? J Arthroplasty 24(6 Suppl):39–43CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gothesen O, Espehaug B, Havelin LI, Petursson G, Hallan G, Strom E, Dyrhovden G, Furnes O (2014) Functional outcome and alignment in computer-assisted and conventionally operated total knee replacements: a multicentre parallel-group randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint J 96-B(5):609–618CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hvid I, Nielsen S (1984) Total condylar knee arthroplasty. Prosthetic component positioning and radiolucent lines. Acta Orthop Scand 55(2):160–165CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jeffery RS, Morris RW, Denham RA (1991) Coronal alignment after total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 73(5):709–714PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jenny JY, Clemens U, Kohler S, Kiefer H, Konermann W, Miehlke RK (2005) Consistency of implantation of a total knee arthroplasty with a non-image-based navigation system: a case–control study of 235 cases compared with 235 conventionally implanted prostheses. J Arthroplasty 20(7):832–839CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kim YH, Kim JS, Choi Y, Kwon OR (2009) Computer-assisted surgical navigation does not improve the alignment and orientation of the components in total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(1):14–19CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kim YH, Kim JS, Yoon SH (2007) Alignment and orientation of the components in total knee replacement with and without navigation support: a prospective, randomised study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(4):471–476CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Klatt BA, Goyal N, Austin MS, Hozack WJ (2008) Custom-fit total knee arthroplasty (OtisKnee) results in malalignment. J Arthroplasty 23(1):26–29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Krishnan SP, Dawood A, Richards R, Henckel J, Hart AJ (2012) A review of rapid prototyped surgical guides for patient-specific total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94(11):1457–1461CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lombardi AV Jr, Berend KR, Adams JB (2008) Patient-specific approach in total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 31(9):927–930CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lotke PA, Ecker ML (1977) Influence of positioning of prosthesis in total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 59(1):77–79PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ng VY, DeClaire JH, Berend KR, Gulick BC, Lombardi AV Jr (2012) Improved accuracy of alignment with patient-specific positioning guides compared with manual instrumentation in TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(1):99–107PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nunley RM, Ellison BS, Ruh EL, Williams BM, Foreman K, Ford AD, Barrack RL (2012) Are patient-specific cutting blocks cost-effective for total knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(3):889–894PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nunley RM, Ellison BS, Zhu J, Ruh EL, Howell SM, Barrack RL (2012) Do patient-specific guides improve coronal alignment in total knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(3):895–902PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Parratte S, Blanc G, Boussemart 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):2213–2219CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ritter MA, Faris PM, Keating EM, Meding JB (1994) Postoperative alignment of total knee replacement. Its effect on survival. Clin Orthop Relat Res 299:153–156PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sparmann M, Wolke B, Czupalla H, Banzer D, Zink A (2003) Positioning of total knee arthroplasty with and without navigation support. A prospective, randomised study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 85(6):830–835PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tang WM, Chiu KY, Kwan MF, Ng TP, Yau WP (2005) Sagittal bowing of the distal femur in Chinese patients who require total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Res 23(1):41–45CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Thienpont E, Paternostre F, Pietsch M, Hafez M, Howell S (2013) Total knee arthroplasty with patient-specific instruments improves function and restores limb alignment in patients with extra-articular deformity. Knee 20(6):407–411CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yaffe M, Luo M, Goyal N, Chan P, Patel A, Cayo M, Stulberg SD (2013) Clinical, functional, and radiographic outcomes following total knee arthroplasty with patient-specific instrumentation, computer-assisted surgery, and manual instrumentation: a short-term follow-up study. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. doi: 10.1007/s11548-013-0968-6 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yau WP, Chiu KY, Tang WM (2007) How precise is the determination of rotational alignment of the femoral prosthesis in total knee arthroplasty: an in vivo study. J Arthroplasty 22(7):1042–1048CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yau WP, Chiu KY, Tang WM, Ng TP (2007) Coronal bowing of the femur and tibia in Chinese: its incidence and effects on total knee arthroplasty planning. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 15(1):32–36Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    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(4):935–945PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chun Hoi Yan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kwong Yuen Chiu
    • 1
  • Fu Yuen Ng
    • 1
  • Ping Keung Chan
    • 1
  • Christian Xinshuo Fang
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 5/F, Queen Mary HospitalThe University of Hong KongHong Kong SARChina

Personalised recommendations