Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Variations in ankle registration using two different anatomic landmarks: a radiographic study

  • Knee
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

To quantify the average deviation in tibial mechanical axis registration when registering the ankle centre using (a) the extreme medial and lateral points and (b) the most distal points, of the respective malleoli, and to identify whether body mass index (BMI) had any significant effect on mechanical axis registration error.

Methods

The preoperative standing hip-knee-ankle radiographs of 40 patients who underwent navigated TKR at our institution were reviewed. The divergence from the anatomic ankle centre in degrees and millimetres was compared when using the Extremes Midpoint and the Distal Midpoint techniques.

Results

No significant divergence was measured with either the Extremes Midpoint (0.2° lateral, SD = 0.5°; 1.1 mm lateral, SD = 2.6 mm) or the Distal Midpoint (0.2° lateral, SD = 0.6°; 1.7 mm lateral, SD = 2.3 mm) techniques. BMI had no significant effect on these differences.

Conclusions

Both the Extremes Midpoint and the Distal Midpoint techniques offer accurate registration of the ankle centre. BMI does not seem to affect the registration of the ankle centre with either technique. The findings of this study will help knee surgeons when choosing an ankle registration technique. These results may also lead to more accurate knee replacement navigation systems.

Level of evidence

III.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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 Jt Surg Br 86(5):682–687

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Berend ME, Ritter MA, Meding JB, Faris PM, Keating EM, Redelman R, Faris GW, Davis KE (2004) Tibial component failure mechanisms in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 428:26–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bolognesi M, Hofmann A (2005) Computer navigation versus standard instrumentation for TKA: a single-surgeon experience. Clin Orthop Relat Res 440:162–169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Callaghan JJ, Liu SS, Warth LC (2006) Computer-assisted surgery: a wine before its time—in the affirmative. J Arthroplasty 21(4 Suppl 1):27–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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 Jt Surg Br 86(3):372–377

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Chin PL, Yang KY, Yeo SJ, Lo NN (2005) Randomized control trial comparing radiographic total knee arthroplasty implant placement using computer navigation versus conventional technique. J Arthroplasty 20(5):618–626

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Decking R, Markmann Y, Fuchs J, Puhl W, Scharf HP (2005) Leg axis after computer-navigated total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized trial comparing computer-navigated and manual implantation. J Arthroplasty 20(3):282–288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fehring TK, Odum S, Griffin WL, Mason JB, Nadaud M (2001) Early failures in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 392:315–318

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Haaker RG, Stockheim M, Kamp M, Proff G, Breitenfelder J, Ottersbach A (2005) Computer-assisted navigation increases precision of component placement in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 433:152–159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hart R, Janecek M, Chaker A, Bucek P (2003) Total knee arthroplasty implanted with and without kinematic navigation. Int Orthop 27(6):366–369

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kim SJ, MacDonald M, Hernandez J, Wixson RL (2005) Computer assisted navigation in total knee arthroplasty: improved coronal alignment. J Arthroplasty 20(7 Suppl 3):123–131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Krackow KA, Bayers-Thering M, Phillips MJ, Bayers-Thering M, Mihalko WM (1999) A new technique for determining proper mechanical axis alignment during total knee arthroplasty: progress toward computer-assisted TKA. Orthopedics 22(7):698–702

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Malik MH, Wadia F, Porter ML (2007) Preliminary radiological evaluation of the vector vision CT-free knee module for implantation of the LCS knee prosthesis. Knee 14(1):19–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Martin A, von Strempel A (2006) Two-year outcomes of computed tomography-based and computed tomography free navigation for total knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 449:275–282

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Matsumoto T, Tsumura N, Kurosaka M, Muratsu H, Kuroda R, Ishimoto K, Tsujimoto K, Shiba R, Yoshiya S (2004) Prosthetic alignment and sizing in computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 28(5):282–285

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Matziolis G, Krocker D, Weiss U, Tohtz S, Perka C (2007) A prospective, randomized study of computer-assisted and conventional total knee arthroplasty. Three-dimensional evaluation of implant alignment and rotation. J Bone Jt Surg Am 89(2):236–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Nofrini L, Slomczykowski M, Iacono F, Marcacci M (2004) Evaluation of accuracy in ankle center location for tibial mechanical axis identification. J Invest Surg 17(1):23–29

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Perlick L, Bathis H, Perlick C, Luring C, Tingart M, Grifka J (2005) Revision total knee arthroplasty: a comparison of postoperative leg alignment after computer-assisted implantation versus the conventional technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 13(3):167–173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ritter MA, Faris PM, Keating EM, Meding JB (1994) Postoperative alignment of total knee replacement. Its effect on survival. Clin Orthop Relat Res 299:153–156

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH, Shastri S, Jacoby SM (2002) Insall award paper. Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today? Clin Orthop Relat Res 404:7–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sharma L, Song J, Felson DT, Cahue S, Shamiyeh E, Dunlop DD (2001) The role of knee alignment in disease progression and functional decline in knee osteoarthritis. JAMA 286(2):188–195

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Siston RA, Daub AC, Giori NJ, Goodman SB, Delp SL (2005) Evaluation of methods that locate the center of the ankle for computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 439:129–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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 Jt Surg Br 85(6):830–835

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Stockl B, Nogler M, Rosiek R, Fischer M, Krismer M, Kessler O (2004) Navigation improves accuracy of rotational alignment in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 426:180–186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Subburaj K, Ravi B, Agarwal M (2009) Automated identification of anatomical landmarks on 3D bone models reconstructed from CT scan images. Comput Med Imaging Graph 33(5):359–368

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. van den Bogert AJ, Smith GD, Nigg BM (1994) In vivo determination of the anatomical axes of the ankle joint complex: an optimization approach. J Biomech 27(12):1477–1488

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Victor J, Hoste D (2004) Image-based computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty leads to lower variability in coronal alignment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 428:131–139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 E 70th St., New York, NY, 10021, USA

    Eduardo M. Suero, Mustafa Citak, Charles Claps & Andrew D. Pearle

  2. Praxim, Inc., New York, NY, USA

    Christopher Plaskos

Authors
  1. Eduardo M. Suero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mustafa Citak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Charles Claps
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrew D. Pearle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christopher Plaskos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eduardo M. Suero.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Suero, E.M., Citak, M., Claps, C. et al. Variations in ankle registration using two different anatomic landmarks: a radiographic study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21, 2759–2763 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-2165-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-2165-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation