Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Der individuelle bikondyläre, kreuzbanderhaltende Oberflächenersatz am Kniegelenk

Aktuelle Literaturübersicht

Custom made total knee arthroplasty

Review of current literature

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Orthopäde Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Die individuelle Knieendoprothetik hat sich mittlerweile zu einer weltweiten Routineoperation an einigen Zentren etabliert. Bislang fehlte insbesondere Literatur zum klinischen Outcome, der die hypothetischen Vorteile der individuellen Versorgung belegt. Ziel der vorgelegten Studie ist es, die aktuelle Literatur thematisch zu sortieren und aufzuarbeiten. Die hier präsentierten Studien zeigen, dass die individuelle Knieendoprothetik mittlerweile ein gereiftes Verfahren mit vielversprechenden Ergebnissen in Hinblick auf Achskorrektur, natürlichere Kinematik, Patientenzufriedenheit und Kostenneutralität darstellt. Diese Entwicklung hat dazu geführt, dass das Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP), als Beratungsgremium des National Health Service in Großbritannien, die Conformis-Prothesen bereits in 2017 mit einem 3A-Rating versehen hat.

Abstract

Custom-designed total knee replacement has become a standard procedure in some orthopaedic centres worldwide. Due to the lack of literature, the discussion about the hypothetical advantages has remained controversial. It was the aim of this study to focus on the current literature on custom-made total knee arthroplasty. We can demonstrate that custom-made total knee arthroplasty is a reproducible strategy with good clinical results in terms of leg-axis reconstruction, natural kinematics, patient-related outcomes and cost effectiveness. This has led to the fact that the Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) of the National Health Service in Great Britain rated the Conformis custom-designed knee replacement in 2017 with a 3D rating.

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

Abbreviations

CAD:

„Computer-aided design“

CAM :

„Computer-aided manufacturing“

CAS :

Computergestützter Chirurgie

CIM :

„Computer-integrated manufacturing“

EQ-5D :

Euroquol-5D

KOOS :

Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score

KSS :

Knee Society Score

NJR :

National Joint Registry

ODEP :

Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel

OTS :

Off the Shelf

PROM :

Patient Related Outcome Measures

WOMAC :

Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index

Literatur

  1. Anderson JG, Wixson RL, Tsai D, Stulberg SD, Chang RW (1996) Functional outcome and patient satisfaction in total knee patients over the age of 75. J Arthroplasty 11(7):83140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Arbab D, Reimann P, Brucker M, Bouillon B, Lüring C (2018) Alignment in total knee arthroplasty—a comparsion of patient-specific implants with the conventional technique. Knee 5(25):882–887

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Arnholdt J, Kamawal Y, Holzapfel BM, Ripp A, Rudert M, Steinert AF (2018) Evaluation of implant fit and frontal plane alignment after bi-compartmental knee arthroplasty using patient-specific instruments and implants. Arch Med Sci 14(6):1424–1432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Barnes L (2017) Customised, individually made unicondylar knee replacement: two-year results of multicentre study. Orthopaedic Proceedings 99-B(No. Supp_3):31–31

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM, Mahomed NN, Charron KD (2010) Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:57–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bourne RB, Chesworth B, Davis A, Mahomed N, Charron K (2010) Comparing patient outcomes after THA and TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:542–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Buch RG, Schroeder L, Buch R, Eberle R (2019) Does implant design affect hospital metrics and patients outcomes? TKA utilizing a “fast track” protocol. Reconstructive Review 9:11–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Culler SD, Steven D, Martin GM, Swearingen A (2017) Comparison of adverse events rates and hospital cost between customized individually made implants and standard off-the-shelf implants for total knee arthroplasty. Arthroplasty Today 3(4):257–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fang DM, Ritter MA, Davis KE (2009) Coronal alignment in total knee arthroplasty: just how important is it? J Arthroplasty 24(6 Suppl):39–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hawker G, Wright J, Coyte P, Paul J, Dittus R, Croxford R, Katz B, Bombardier C, Heck D, Freund D (1998) Health-related quality of life after knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 80(2):16373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. iTotal® CR. http://www.odep.org.uk/product.aspx?pid=4305. Zugegriffen: 24. Jan. 2020

  12. Ivie CB, Probst PJ, Bal AK, Stannard JT, Crist BD, Sonny Bal B (2014) Improved radiographic outcomes with patient-specific total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 29:2100–2103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jeffery RS, Morris RW, Denharn RA (1991) Coronal alignment after total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 73:709–714

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kurtz WB, Slamin JE, Doody SW (2016) Bone preservation in a novel patient specific total knee replacement. Reconstructive Review 6(1). https://doi.org/10.15438/rr.6.1.133

  15. Levengood GA, Dupee J (2018) Accuracy of coronal plane mechanical alignment in a customized, individually made total knee replacement with patient-specific instrumentation. J Knee Surg 31:792–796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Meier M, Zingde S, Steinert A, Kurtz W, Koeck F, Beckmann J (2019) What is the possible impact of high variability of distal femoral geometry on TKA? A CT data analysis of 24042 knees. Clin Orthop Relat Res 477(3):561–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Namin AT, Jalali MS, Vahdat V, Bedair HS, O’Connor MI, Kamarthi S, Isaacs JA (2019) The adoption of new medical technologies: the case of customized individually made knee implants. Value Health 22(4):423–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Noble PC, Conditt MA, Cook KF, Mathis KB (2006) The John Insall Award: Patient expectations affect satisfaction with total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 452:3543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. O’Connor MI, Blau BE (2018) Customized knee implants drive cost savings in a medicare population. Orthopaedic Proceedings 100-B(No. Supp_12):72

    Google Scholar 

  20. O’Connor MI, Blau BE (2018) The economic value of customized versus off-the-shelf knee implants in medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Am Health Drug Benefits 12(2):66–73

    Google Scholar 

  21. O’Connor M, Siebert W, Beckmann J, Köck J, Visk M, Borja F, Van der Ven A, Cannova C, Rossario E, Mack D, Kwartowitz M, Johnson D, Tait R (2016) Improved knee function with customized vs. Off-the-shelf TKA-implant. Summary from the ICJR Pan Pacific Congress. In: 3rd Annual Pan Pacific Orthopaedic Congress, August 10–13, 2016, Hilton Waikoloa Village, Kona, (the Big Island), Hawaii

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ogura T, Le K, Merkely G, Bryant T, Minas T (2019) A high level of satisfaction after bicompartmental individualized knee arthroplasty with patient-specific implants and instrument. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27(5):1487–1496 (May)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Parvizi J, Nunley RM, Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr, Ruh EL, Clohisy JC, Hamilton WG, Valle DCJ, Barrack RL (2014) High level of residual symptoms in young patients after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:133–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Patil S, Bunn A, Bugbee WD, Colwell CW Jr, D’Lima DD (2015) Patient-specific implants with custom cutting blocks better approximate natural knee kinematics than standard TKA without custom cutting blocks. Knee 6(22):624–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Reimann P, Brucker M, Arab D, Lüring C (2019) Patient satisfaction—a comparsion between patient-specific implants and conventional total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop 16:273–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ritter MA, Davis KE, Meding JB, Pierson JL, Berend ME, Malinzak RA (2011) The effect of alignment and BMI on failure of total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(17):1588–1596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Robertsson O, Dunbar M, Pehrsson T, Knutson K, Lindgren L (2000) Patient satisfaction after knee arthroplasty: a report on 27372 knees operated on between 1981 and 1995 in Sweden. Acta Orthop Scand 71(3):2627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Schroeder L, Martin G (2019) In vivo tibial fit and rotational analysis of a customized, patient-specific TKA versus off-the-shelf TKA. J Knee Surg 32(06):499–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Schroeder L, Neginhal W, Kurtz WB (2019) Patient satisfaction, functional outcomes and survivorship in patients with a customized posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty. Orthopaedic Proceedings 101-B(No. Supp_4):46–46

    Google Scholar 

  30. Sinha RK (2012) The use of customized TKA implants for increased efficiency in the OR. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 4(5):296–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Steinert AF, Beckmann J, Holzapfel BM, Rudert M, Arnholdt J (2017) Bicompartmental individualized knee replacement: use of patient-specific implants and instruments (iDuo™). Oper Orthop Traumatol 1(29):51–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Suda AJ, Seeger JB, Bitsch RG, Krueger M, Clarius M (2010) Are patients’ expectations of hip and knee arthroplasty fulfilled? A prospective study of 130 patients. Orthopedics 33(2):7680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Wylde V, Blom AW, Whitehouse SL, Taylor AH, Pattison GT, Bannister GC (2009) Patient reported outcomes after total hip and knee arthroplasty: comparison of midterm results. J Arthroplasty 24(2):2106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Zeller IM, Sharma A, Kurtz WB, Anderle MR, Komistek RD (2017) Customized versus patient-sized cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty: an in vivo kinematics study using mobile fluoroscopy. J Arthroplasty 4(32):1344–1350

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopädische Klinik, Klinikum Dortmund gGmbH, Beurhausstraße 40, 44137, Dortmund, Deutschland

    Christian Lüring

  2. Department Endoprothetik untere Extremität und Fußchirurgie, Sportklinik Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Deutschland

    Johannes Beckmann

Authors
  1. Christian Lüring
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Johannes Beckmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Lüring.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

J. Beckmann ist als Berater für die Fa. Conformis tätig. C. Lüring gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Für diesen Beitrag wurden von den Autoren keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lüring, C., Beckmann, J. Der individuelle bikondyläre, kreuzbanderhaltende Oberflächenersatz am Kniegelenk. Orthopäde 49, 382–389 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-020-03900-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-020-03900-0

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation