No radiographic difference between patient-specific guiding and conventional Oxford UKA surgery

Implant position is an important factor in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) surgery. Results on conventional UKA alignment are commonly described in literature. Patient-specific guiding (PSG) is a new technique for positioning the Oxford UKA. Our hypothesis is that PSG improves component position without affecting the HKA angle.This prospective study compares the results of our first thirty cases of cementless Oxford UKA using PSG with thirty cases using conventional outlining. Baseline characteristics for both groups were identical. Details on handling of the guide, estimated blood loss and operation time were recorded. Postoperative screened radiographs and standing long-leg radiographs of both groups were compared.Median AP position of the femoral component was 3 degrees varus (-5 to 9) using PSG versus 2 degrees varus (-10 to 8) for the conventional group. For the femoral flexion, this was 9 degrees flexion (0-16) using PSG versus 12 degrees flexion (0-20). The tibial median AP position was 1 degree varus (-3 to 7) using PSG versus 2 degrees varus (-5 to 10). The median tibial posterior slope was 5 degrees (1-10) using PSG versus 5 degrees (0-12). All guides aligned well. No conversion to conventional outlining was performed, and no significant changes had to be made to the original approved plan. Operation time, estimated blood loss and postoperative haemoglobin drop were not significantly different between both groups.Implant position was not different between both groups, even in the early phase of the learning curve. Perioperative results were not different between both groups.III

Patient-specific positioning guides for total knee arthroplasty: no significant difference between final component alignment and pre-operative digital plan except for tibial rotation

To assess whether there is a significant difference between the alignment of the individual femoral and tibial components (in the frontal, sagittal and horizontal planes) as calculated pre-operatively (digital plan) and the actually achieved alignment in vivo obtained with the use of patient-specific positioning guides (PSPGs) for TKA. It was hypothesised that there would be no difference between post-op implant position and pre-op digital plan.Twenty-six patients were included in this non-inferiority trial. Software permitted matching of the pre-operative MRI scan (and therefore calculated prosthesis position) to a pre-operative CT scan and then to a post-operative full-leg CT scan to determine deviations from pre-op planning in all three anatomical planes.For the femoral component, mean absolute deviations from planning were 1.8A degrees (SD 1.3), 2.5A degrees (SD 1.6) and 1.6A degrees (SD 1.4) in the frontal, sagittal and transverse planes, respectively. For the tibial component, mean absolute deviations from planning were 1.7A degrees (SD 1.2), 1.7A degrees (SD 1.5) and 3.2A degrees (SD 3.6) in the frontal, sagittal and transverse planes, respectively. Absolute mean deviation from planned mechanical axis was 1.9A degrees. The a priori specified null hypothesis for equivalence testing: the difference from planning is > 3 or <-3 was rejected for all comparisons except for the tibial transverse plane.PSPG was able to adequately reproduce the pre-op plan in all planes, except for the tibial rotation in the transverse plane. Possible explanations for outliers are discussed and highlight the importance for adequate training surgeons before they start using PSPG in their day-by-day practise.Prospective cohort study, Level II

Revision from unicompartmental to total knee replacement THE CLINICAL OUTCOME DEPENDS ON REASON FOR REVISION

Although it has been suggested that the outcome after revision of a unicondylar knee replacement (UKR) to total knee replacement (TKR) is better when the mechanism of failure is understood, a comparative study on this subject has not been undertaken.A total of 30 patients (30 knees) who underwent revision of their unsatisfactory UKR to TKR were included in the study: 15 patients with unexplained pain comprised group A and 15 patients with a defined cause for pain formed group B. The Oxford knee score (OKS), visual analogue scale for pain (VAS) and patient satisfaction were assessed before revision and at one year after revision, and compared between the groups.The mean OKS improved from 19 (10 to 30) to 25 (11 to 41) in group A and from 23 (11 to 45) to 38 (20 to 48) in group B. The mean VAS improved from 7.7 (5 to 10) to 5.4 (1 to 8) in group A and from 7.4 (2 to 9) to 1.7 (0 to 8) in group B. There was a statistically significant difference between the mean improvements in each group for both OKS (p = 0.022) and VAS (p = 0.002). Subgroup analysis in group A, performed in order to define a patient factor that predicts outcome of revision surgery in patients with unexplained pain, showed no pre-operative differences between both subgroups.These results may be used to inform patients about what to expect from revision surgery, highlighting that revision of UKR to TKR for unexplained pain generally results in a less favourable outcome than revision for a known cause of pain.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1204–8.</jats:p