Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 36, Issue 7, pp 1379–1385 | Cite as

Computer-assisted surgery as indication of choice: total knee arthroplasty in case of retained hardware or extra-articular deformity

  • Domenico Tigani
  • Gilberto Masetti
  • Giacomo Sabbioni
  • Rida Ben Ayad
  • Mattia Filanti
  • Matteo Fosco
Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

The use of traditional cutting guides during knee arthroplasty in some cases could be extremely difficult, if not impossible, because of angular deformities, IM sclerosis, long-stemmed hip implants, or hardware within the femoral canal that cannot be removed. In these difficult cases navigation-assisted knee arthroplasty should be considered as an effective and appealing option.

Methods

We present 14 cases in which ideal mechanical and prosthetic alignment was achieved with different image-free, computer-assisted navigation systems, because of an extra-articular deformity (group A, nine patients) or because of a retained implant or hardware (group B, five patients).

Results

After a mean follow-up of 28 months (range 12–53 months), the average knee score increased overall from a mean of 33 points (range 12–63) to 78 points (range 63–90). The average functional score improved from a mean of 32 points (range 10–65) to 72 points (range 40–90). The postoperative mechanical axis ranged between 3° of varus and 3° of valgus. There was an implant revision in one patient who had a traumatic rupture of medial collateral ligament, which occurred 27 months after the index procedure.

Conclusions

Based on our results we think that the navigation-assisted technique provides an alternative approach to the traditional instrumentation for treating these difficult patients in an effective and less invasive manner.

Keywords

Total Knee Arthroplasty Medial Collateral Ligament Mechanical Axis Knee Prosthesis Angular Deformity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Jeffery RS, Morris RW, Denham RA (1991) Coronal alignment after total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 73(5):709–714PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berend ME, Ritter MA, Meding JB et al (2004) Tibial component failure mechanisms in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 428:26–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Insall JN, Easley ME (2001) Surgical techniques and instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty In: Insall JN, Scott WN (eds). Surgery of the knee, 3rd edn. Churchill Livingston, Philadelphia, p 1578Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stulberg SD, Loan P, Sarin V (2002) Computer-assisted navigation in total knee replacement: results of an initial experience in thirty-five patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-A(Suppl 2):90–98PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Teter KE, Bregman D, Colwell CW (1995) The efficacy of intramedullary femoral alignment in total knee replacement. Clin Orthop 321:117–121PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Engh GA, Petersen TL (1990) Comparative experience with intramedullary and extramedullary alignment in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 5(1):1–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mason JB, Fehring TK, Estok R, Banel D, Fahrbach K (2007) Meta-analysis of alignment outcomes in computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty surgery. J Arthroplasty 22(8):1097–1115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kim YH, Kim JS, Yoon SH (2007) Alignment and orientation of the components in total knee replacement with and without navigation support: a prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(4):471–476PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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):935–945PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Molfetta L, Caldo D (2008) Computer navigation versus conventional implantation for 362 varus knee total arthroplasty: a case–control study at 5 years follow-up. Knee 15(2):75–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Callaghan JJ, Liu SS, Warth LC (2006) Computer-assisted surgery: a wine before its time: in the affirmative. J Arthroplasty 21(4 suppl1):27–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alden KJ, Pagnano MW (2008) Computer-assisted surgery: a wine before its time. Orthopedics 31(9):937–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lonner JH, Siliski JM, Lotke PA (2000) Simultaneous femoral osteotomy and total knee arthroplasty for treatment of osteoarthritis associated with severe extra-articular deformity. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82(3):342–348PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wolff AM, Hungerford DS, Pepe CL (1991) The effect of extraarticular varus and valgus deformity on total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 271:35–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bottros J, Klika AK, Lee HH, Polousky J, Barsoum WK (2008) The use of navigation in total knee arthroplasty for patients with extra-articular deformity. J Arthroplasty 23(1):74–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Klein GR, Austin MS, Smith EB, Hozack WJ (2006) Total knee arthroplasty using computer-assisted navigation in patients with deformities of the femur and tibia. J Arthroplasty 21(2):284–288PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fehring TK, Mason JB, Moskal J, Pollock DC, Mann J, Williams VJ (2006) When computer-assisted knee replacement is the best alternative. Clin Orthop Relat Res 452:132–136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:13–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Baldini A, Anderson J, Zampetti P, Pavlov H, Sculco TP (2006) A new patellofemoral scoring system for total arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 452:150–154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bäthis H, Shafizadeh S, Paffrath T, Simanski C, Grifka J, Lüring C (2006) Are computer assisted total knee replacements more accurately placed? A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Orthopade 35(10):1056–1065PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fang DM, Ritter MA, Davis KE (2009) Coronal alignment in total knee arthroplasty: just how important is it? J Arthroplasty 24(6 Suppl):39–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Haas S, Nelson C, Laskin R (2000) Posterior stabilized knee arthroplasty: an assessment of the bone resection. Knee 7:25–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang JW, Wang CJ (2002) Total knee arthroplasty for arthritis of the knee with extra-articular deformity. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-A(10):1769–1774PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Novotny J, Gonzalez MH, Amirouche FM, Li YC (2001) Geometric analysis of potential error in using femoral intramedullary guides in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 16(5):641–647PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mullaji A, Shetty GM (2009) Computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty for arthritis with extra-articular deformity. J Arthroplasty 24(8):1164–1169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Domenico Tigani
    • 1
  • Gilberto Masetti
    • 2
  • Giacomo Sabbioni
    • 3
  • Rida Ben Ayad
    • 3
  • Mattia Filanti
    • 3
  • Matteo Fosco
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgerySanta Maria alle Scotte HospitalSienaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryHospital of VignolaModenaItaly
  3. 3.First Ward of OrthopaedicRizzoli Orthopaedic InstituteBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations