Advertisement

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 472, Issue 10, pp 2913–2922 | Cite as

Small Improvements in Mechanical Axis Alignment Achieved With MRI versus CT-based Patient-specific Instruments in TKA: A Randomized Clinical Trial

  • Tilman Pfitzner
  • Matthew P. Abdel
  • Philipp von Roth
  • Carsten Perka
  • Hagen Hommel
Clinical Research

Abstract

Background

Patient-specific instrumentation in TKA has the proposed benefits of improving coronal and sagittal alignment and rotation of the components. In contrast, the literature is inconsistent if the use of patient-specific instrumentation improves alignment in comparison to conventional instrumentation. Depending on the manufacturer, patient-specific instrumentation is based on either MRI or CT scans. However, it is unknown whether one patient-specific instrumentation approach is more accurate than the other and if there is a potential benefit in terms of reduction of duration of surgery.

Questions/purposes

We compared the accuracy of MRI- and CT-based patient-specific instrumentation with conventional instrumentation and with each other in TKAs. The three approaches also were compared with respect to validated outcomes scores and duration of surgery.

Methods

A randomized clinical trial was conducted in which 90 patients were enrolled and divided into three groups: CT-based, MRI-based patient-specific instrumentation, and conventional instrumentation. The groups were not different regarding age, male/female sex distribution, and BMI. In all groups, coronal and sagittal alignments were measured on postoperative standing long-leg and lateral radiographs. Component rotation was measured on CT scans. Clinical outcomes (Knee Society and WOMAC scores) were evaluated preoperatively and at a mean of 3 months postoperatively and the duration of surgery was analyzed for each patient. MRI- and CT-based patient-specific instrumentation groups were first compared with conventional instrumentation, the patient-specific instrumentation groups were compared with each other, and all three approaches were compared for clinical outcome measures and duration of surgery.

Results

Compared with conventional instrumentation MRI- and CT-based patient-specific instrumentation showed higher accuracy regarding the coronal limb axis (MRI versus conventional, 1.0° [range, 0°–4°] versus 4.5° [range, 0°–8°], p < 0.001; CT versus conventional, 3.0° [range, 0°–5°] versus 4.5° [range, 0°–8°], p = 0.02), femoral rotation (MRI versus conventional, 1.0° [range, 0°–2°] versus 4.0° [range, 1°–7°], p < 0.001; CT versus conventional, 1.0° [range, 0°–2°] versus 4.0° [range, 1°–7°], p < 0.001), and tibial slope (MRI versus conventional, 1.0° [range, 0°–2°] versus 3.5° [range, 1°–7°], p < 0.001; CT versus conventional, 1.0° [range, 0°–2°] versus 3.5° [range, 1°–7°], p < 0.001), but the differences were small. Furthermore, MRI-based patient-specific instrumentation showed a smaller deviation in the postoperative coronal mechanical limb axis compared with CT-based patient-specific instrumentation (MRI versus CT, 1.0° [range, 0°–4°] versus 3.0° [range, 0°–5°], p = 0.03), while there was no difference in femoral rotation or tibial slope. Although there was a significant reduction of the duration of surgery in both patient-specific instrumentation groups in comparison to conventional instrumentation (MRI versus conventional, 58 minutes [range, 53–67 minutes] versus 76 minutes [range, 57–83 minutes], p < 0.001; CT versus conventional, 63 minutes [range, 59–69 minutes] versus 76 minutes [range, 57–83 minutes], p < .001), there were no differences in the postoperative Knee Society pain and function and WOMAC scores among the groups.

Conclusions

Although this study supports that patient-specific instrumentation increased accuracy compared with conventional instrumentation and that MRI-based patient-specific instrumentation is more accurate compared with CT-based patient-specific instrumentation regarding coronal mechanical limb axis, differences are only subtle and of questionable clinical relevance. Because there are no differences in the long-term clinical outcome or survivorship yet available, the widespread use of this technique cannot be recommended.

Level of Evidence

Level I, therapeutic study. See the Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Keywords

Femoral Component Tibial Component Tibial Slope Sagittal Alignment WOMAC Score 
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

Acknowledgments

We thank Kai Wilke MD (Orthopedic Department, Hospital Märkisch Oderland, Section Wriezen, Wriezen, Germany) for assistance with the study and randomization of the patients.

References

  1. 1.
    Ast MP, Nam D, Haas SB. Patient-specific instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty: a review. Orthop Clin North Am. 2012;43:e17–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barrett W, Hoeffel D, Dalury D, Mason JB, Murphy J, Himden S. In-vivo alignment comparing patient specific instrumentation with both conventional and computer assisted surgery (CAS) instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29:343–347.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berger RA, Crossett LS, Jacobs JJ, Rubash HE. Malrotation causing patellofemoral complications after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;356:144–153.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bhattee G, Moonot P, Govindaswamy R, Pope A, Fiddian N, Harvey A. Does malrotation of components correlate with patient dissatisfaction following secondary patellar resurfacing? Knee. 2014;21:247–251.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bombardier CH, Buchwald D. Outcome and prognosis of patients with chronic fatigue vs chronic fatigue syndrome. Arch Intern Med. 1995;155:2105–2110.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bousson V, Lowitz T, Laouisset L, Engelke K, Laredo JD. CT imaging for the investigation of subchondral bone in knee osteoarthritis. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23 (suppl 8):S861–865.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brin YS, Nikolaou VS, Joseph L, Zukor DJ, Antoniou J. Imageless computer assisted versus conventional total knee replacement: a Bayesian meta-analysis of 23 comparative studies. Int Orthop. 2011;35:331–339.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cenni F, Timoncini A, Ensini A, Tamarri S, Belvedere C, D’Angeli V, Giannini S, Leardini A. Three-dimensional implant position and orientation after total knee replacement performed with patient-specific instrumentation systems. J Orthop Res. 2014;32:331–337.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chan WP, Lang P, Stevens MP, Sack K, Majumdar S, Stoller DW, Basch C, Genant HK. Osteoarthritis of the knee: comparison of radiography, CT, and MR imaging to assess extent and severity. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1991;157:799–806.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen JY, Yeo SJ, Yew AK, Tay DK, Chia SL, Lo NN, Chin PL. The radiological outcomes of patient-specific instrumentation versus conventional total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014; 22:630–635.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cheng T, Zhang G, Zhang X. Imageless navigation system does not improve component rotational alignment in total knee arthroplasty. J Surg Res. 2011;171:590–600.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cheng T, Zhao S, Peng X, Zhang X. Does computer-assisted surgery improve postoperative leg alignment and implant positioning following total knee arthroplasty? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20:1307–1322.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cooke TD, Scudamore RA, Bryant JT, Sorbie C, Siu D, Fisher B. A quantitative approach to radiography of the lower limb: principles and applications. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991;73:715–720.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Daniilidis K, Tibesku CO. Frontal plane alignment after total knee arthroplasty using patient-specific instruments. Int Orthop. 2013;37:45–50.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ensini A, Timoncini A, Cenni F, Belvedere C, Fusai F, Leardini A, Giannini S. Intra- and post-operative accuracy assessments of two different patient-specific instrumentation systems for total knee replacement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;22:621–629.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hafez MA, Chelule KL, Seedhom BB, Sherman KP. Computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty using patient-specific templating. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;444:184–192.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Han HS, Seong SC, Lee S, Lee MC. Rotational alignment of femoral components in total knee arthroplasty: nonimage-based navigation system versus conventional technique. Orthopedics. 2006;29(10 suppl):S148–151.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Heyse TJ, Tibesku CO. Improved femoral component rotation in TKA using patient-specific instrumentation. Knee. 2014;21:268–271.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Howell SM, Hodapp EE, Kuznik K, Hull ML. In vivo adduction and reverse axial rotation (external) of the tibial component can be minimized. Orthopedics. 2009;32:319.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hunt MA, Fowler PJ, Birmingham TB, Jenkyn TR, Giffin JR. Foot rotational effects on radiographic measures of lower limb alignment. Can J Surg. 2006;49:401–406.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;248:13–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kalke RJ, Di Primio GA, Schweitzer ME. MR and CT arthrography of the knee. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2012;16:57–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kamat YD, Aurakzai KM, Adhikari AR, Matthews D, Kalairajah Y, Field RE. Does computer navigation in total knee arthroplasty improve patient outcome at midterm follow-up? Int Orthop. 2009;33:1567–1570.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Koch PP, Muller D, Pisan M, Fucentese SF. Radiographic accuracy in TKA with a CT-based patient-specific cutting block technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21:2200–2205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lombardi AV Jr, Berend KR, Ng VY. Neutral mechanical alignment: a requirement for successful TKA: affirms. Orthopedics. 2011;34:e504–506.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lustig S, Scholes CJ, Oussedik SI, Kinzel V, Coolican MR, Parker DA. Unsatisfactory accuracy as determined by computer navigation of VISIONAIRE patient-specific instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28:469–473.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    MacDessi SJ, Jang B, Harris IA, Wheatley E, Bryant C, Chen DB. A comparison of alignment using patient specific guides, computer navigation and conventional instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty. Knee. 2014;21:406–409.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Martin A, Sheinkop MB, Langhenry MM, Widemschek M, Benesch T, von Strempel A. Comparison of two minimally invasive implantation instrument-sets for total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010;18:359–366.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Matsuda S, Kawahara S, Okazaki K, Tashiro Y, Iwamoto Y. Postoperative alignment and ROM affect patient satisfaction after TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:127–133.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Matziolis G, Boenicke H, Pfiel S, Wassilew G, Perka C. The gap technique does not rotate the femur parallel to the epicondylar axis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011;131:163–166.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Matziolis G, Pfitzner T, Thiele K, Matziolis D, Perka C. Influence of the position of the fibular head after implantation of a total knee prosthesis on femorotibial rotation. Orthopedics. 2011;34:e610–614.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Minoda Y, Kobayashi A, Iwaki H, Ohashi H, Takaoka K. TKA sagittal alignment with navigation systems and conventional techniques vary only a few degrees. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:1000–1006.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gotzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG; Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Group. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:e1–37.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nam D, McArthur BA, Cross MB, Pearle AD, Mayman DJ, Haas SB. Patient-specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: a review. J Knee Surg. 2012;25:213–219.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ng VY, DeClaire JH, Berend KR, Gulick BC, Lombardi AV Jr. Improved accuracy of alignment with patient-specific positioning guides compared with manual instrumentation in TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:99–107.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Noble JW Jr, Moore CA, Liu N. The value of patient-matched instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27:153–155.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nunley RM, Ellison BS, Zhu J, Ruh EL, Howell SM, Barrack RL. Do patient-specific guides improve coronal alignment in total knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:895–902.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Parratte S, Blanc G, Boussemart T, Ollivier M, Le Corroller T, Argenson JN. Rotation in total knee arthroplasty: no difference between patient-specific and conventional instrumentation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21:2213–2219.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Parratte S, Pagnano MW, Trousdale RT, Berry DJ. Effect of postoperative mechanical axis alignment on the fifteen-year survival of modern, cemented total knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:2143–2149.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pfitzner T, Rohner E, Preininger B, Perka C, Matziolis G. Femur positioning in navigated total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2012;35(10 suppl):45–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pietsch M, Djahani O, Hochegger M, Plattner F, Hofmann S. Patient-specific total knee arthroplasty: the importance of planning by the surgeon. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21:2220–2226.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pietsch M, Hofmann S. [Value of radiographic examination of the knee joint for the orthopedic surgeon][in German]. Radiologe. 2006;46:55–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ritter MA, Faris PM, Keating EM, Meding JB. Postoperative alignment of total knee replacement: its effect on survival. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;299:153–156.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Roemer FW, Crema MD, Trattnig S, Guermazi A. Advances in imaging of osteoarthritis and cartilage. Radiology. 2011;260:332–354.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Shah DA, Madden LV. Nonparametric analysis of ordinal data in designed factorial experiments. Phytopathology. 2004;94:33–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Silva A, Sampaio R, Pinto E. Patient-specific instrumentation improves tibial component rotation in TKA. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;22:636–642.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Smith TO, Drew BT, Toms AP, Donell ST, Hing CB. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging, magnetic resonance arthrography and computed tomography for the detection of chondral lesions of the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20:2367–2379.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Tibesku CO, Hofer P, Portegies W, Ruys CJ, Fennema P. Benefits of using customized instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: results from an activity-based costing model. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013;133:405–411.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Victor J, Dujardin J, Vandenneucker H, Arnout N, Bellemans J. Patient-specific guides do not improve accuracy in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:263–271.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Watters TS, Mather RC 3rd, Browne JA, Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr, Bolognesi MP. Analysis of procedure-related costs and proposed benefits of using patient-specific approach in total knee arthroplasty. J Surg Orthop Adv. 2011;20:112–116.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Windsor RE, Scuderi GR, Moran MC, Insall JN. Mechanisms of failure of the femoral and tibial components in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;248:15–19; discussion 19–20.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Yaffe MA, Koo SS, Stulberg SD. Radiographic and navigation measurements of TKA limb alignment do not correlate. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:2736–2744.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tilman Pfitzner
    • 1
  • Matthew P. Abdel
    • 2
  • Philipp von Roth
    • 1
  • Carsten Perka
    • 1
  • Hagen Hommel
    • 3
  1. 1.Center for Musculoskeletal Surgery-Orthopedic DepartmentCharité-Universitätsmedizin BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryMayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  3. 3.Orthopedic DepartmentHospital Märkisch OderlandWriezenGermany

Personalised recommendations