International Orthopaedics

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 139–149 | Cite as

Computed tomography evaluation of total knee arthroplasty implants position after two different surgical methods of implantation

  • Francesco Benazzo
  • Stefano Marco Paolo Rossi
  • Gianmarco Danesino
  • Catherine Klersy
  • Simone Perelli
  • Matteo GhiaraEmail author
Original Paper



The objectives of this study were to determine the reliability of a novel method of measuring the rotational alignment of an anatomical tibial tray, the difference in the rotational alignment of the femoral and tibial component according to pure measured resection or blended technique with tensor, and, finally, the difference in terms of clinical results according to the two different methods.

Patients and methods

We performed a total of 60 consecutive TKAs: 30 according to pure measured resection and 30 according to blended technique with tensor (FuZion®). Clinical scores and CT scan were done at six months to measure patient’s outcome and prosthetic components rotation.


The method of measurement of tibial tray had high agreement between different radiological observers. Mean external rotation alignment of the femur was 2.7° in standard group and 0.5° in the FuZion® group. For all clinical indices, we observed a large and significant improvement at follow-up, better in blended technique group, but without a clear superiority, and no statistically significant difference was evident between the two groups. At follow-up, HSS was to 89.7 in the FuZion® group and 89.0 in the standard group, KSS (clinical) was 92.6 in and 91.3 respectively, and KSS (Functional) was 91.0 in the FuZion® group and 87.6 in the standard group.


Our CT measurement method is reliable and reproducible. All patients operated with this personalized knee system design obtained excellent results; the customization of femoral rotation with a blended technique is, probably, the key to optimize the outcomes and achieve the state of forgotten knee.


CT measurement TKA rotation Personalized TKA design Measured resection and gap balancing Blended technique with tensor 


Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical committee approval was obtained for this study (protocol number 20150003437).

Conflict of interest

The first Author (FB) is part of the design team of the implant. The other authors (MG, GD, CK, SMPR, and SP) declare that they have no conflict of interest. The study is a spontaneous observational investigation carried out by the Authors.


  1. 1.
    Petersen W, Rembitzki IV, Brüggemann GP, Ellermann A, Best R, Koppenburg AG, Liebau C (2014) Anterior knee pain after total knee arthroplasty: a narrative review. Int Orthop 38(2):319–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bonnin MP, Basiglini L, Archbold HA (2011) What are the factor of residual pain after uncomplicated TKA? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:1411–1417. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berger RA, Rubash HE (2001) Rotational instability and malrotation after total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedic Clinics of North America N 4:639–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boldt JG, Stiehl JB, Hodler J, Zanetti M, Munzinger U (2006) Femoral component rotation and arthrofibrosis following mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 30(5):420–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bédard M, Vince KG, Redfern J, Collen SR (2011) Internal rotation of the tibial component is frequent in stiff total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:2346–2355. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heesterbeek PJC, Jacobs WCH, Wymenga AB (2009) Effects of the balanced gap technique on femoral component rotation in TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:1015–1022. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Daines BK, Dennis DA (2014) Gap balancing vs. measured resection technique in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Surg 6(1):1–8. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ghiara M, Combi A, Perticarini L, Rossi SMP, Benazzo F (2013) Patient reported outcome measures in the new persona total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Trauma 14(Suppl 1):S109–S110Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ghiara M, Combi A, Perticarini L, Rossi SMP, Benazzo F (2013) Short term follow-up in the new persona total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Trauma 14(Suppl 1):S111Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Benazzo F, Rossi SM (2012) The trivector approach for minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty: a technical note. J Orthop Traumatol 13(3):159–162. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sarmah SS, Patel S, Hossain FS, Haddad FS (2012) The radiological assessment of total and unicompartmental knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 94-B:1321–1329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Figueroa J, Guarachi JP, Matas J, Arnander M, Orrego M (2016) Is computed tomography an accurate and reliable method for measuring total knee arthroplasty component rotation? Int Orthop 40(4):709–714. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Giesinger JM, Hamilton DF, Jost B, Behrend H, Giesinger K (2015) MD WOMAC, EQ-5D and knee society score thresholds for treatment success after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 30:2154–2158. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Olcott CW, Scott RD (2000) A comparison of 4 intraoperative methods to determine femoral component rotation during total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 15(1):22–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Victor J (2009) Rotational alignment of the distal femur: a literature review. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 95:365–372. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moon YW, Kim HJ, Ahn HS, Park CD, Lee DH (2016) Comparison of soft tissue balancing, femoral component rotation, and joint line change between the gap balancing and measured resection techniques in primary total knee arthroplasty. A meta-analysis. Medicine 95(39):e5006. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Savin L, Botez P, Mihailescu D, Predescu V, Grierosu C (2016) Pre-operative radiological measurement of femoral rotation for prosthetic positioning in total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 40(9):1855–1860. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Scott RD (2013) Femoral and tibial component rotation in total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 95-B(Supple A):140–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ferlic PW, Runer A, Dirisamer F, Balcarek P, Giesinger J, Biedermann R, Liebensteiner MC (2018) The use of tibial tuberosity-trochlear groove indices based on joint size in lower limb evaluation. Int Orthop 42:995–1000. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Saragaglia D, Rubens-Duval B, Gaillot J, Lateur G, Pailhé R (2018) Total knee arthroplasties from the origin to navigation: history, rationale, indications. Int Orthop.

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Clinical-Surgical Sciences, Diagnostics and Pediatrics, University of Pavia, Operative Unit of Orthopaedics and TraumatologyFondazione IRCCS Policlinico San MatteoPaviaItaly
  2. 2.Interventional and Diagnostic Radiology and NeuroradiologyFondazione IRCCS Policlinico San MatteoPaviaItaly
  3. 3.Clinical Epidemiology and BiometryFondazione IRCCS Policlinico San MatteoPaviaItaly

Personalised recommendations