The influence of computer-assisted surgery on rotational, coronal and sagittal alignment in revision total knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND: Despite good results of primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA), the number of revision total knee arthroplasties (rTKAs) is rising. Proper implant position is essential, since malposition leads to worse clinical outcome. In rTKA most anatomical landmarks have disappeared because of extensive bone loss, making it more difficult to adequately implant the knee prosthesis. In primary TKA, computer-assisted surgery (CAS) leads to better prosthetic alignment than mechanical navigation guides. Literature about the use of CAS in rTKA is scarce though, and the effect on rotational prosthetic alignment has not been investigated yet. Hence the primary objective of this study is to compare rotational prosthetic alignment when using CAS in rTKA compared to a mechanical navigation guide. Secondary objectives are to compare prosthetic alignment in the coronal and sagittal planes. It is hypothesized that CAS leads to better rotational, coronal and sagittal prosthetic alignment when used during rTKA. METHODS/DESIGN: A prospective clinical intervention study with use of a historical control group will be conducted. Forty-four patients with a minimum age of 18 to be admitted for CAS-rTKA between September 2012 and September 2015 will be included in the intervention group. Forty-four patients with a minimum age of 18 who underwent rTKA with the use of a mechanical navigation guide between January 2002 and April 2012 will form the historical control group. Both groups will be matched according to gender and type of revision prosthesis. Rotational prosthesis alignment will be evaluated using a CT-scan of the knee joint. DISCUSSION: Proper implant position is essential, since malposition leads to worse clinical outcome. Several studies show a significantly positive influence of CAS on prosthetic alignment in primary TKA, but literature about the use of CAS in rTKA is limited. The purpose of this study is thus to investigate the influence of CAS during rTKA on postoperative prosthetic alignment, compared to mechanical navigation guides. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands National Trial Register NTR351

The Validity of a New Low-Dose Stereoradiography System to Perform 2D and 3D Knee Prosthetic Alignment Measurements

INTRODUCTION:The EOS stereoradiography system has shown to provide reliable varus/valgus (VV) measurements of the lower limb in 2D (VV2D) and 3D (VV3D) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Validity of these measurements has not been investigated yet, therefore the purpose of this study was to determine validity of EOS VV2D and VV3D. METHODS:EOS images were made of a lower limb phantom containing a knee prosthesis, while varying VV angle from 15° varus to 15° valgus and flexion angle from 0° to 20°, and changing rotation from 20° internal to 20° external rotation. Differences between the actual VV position of the lower limb phantom and its position as measured on EOS 2D and 3D images were investigated. RESULTS:Rotation, flexion or VV angle alone had no major impact on VV2D or VV3D. Combination of VV angle and rotation with full extension did not show major differences in VV2D measurements either. Combination of flexion and rotation with a neutral VV angle showed variation of up to 7.4° for VV2D; maximum variation for VV3D was only 1.5°. A combination of the three variables showed an even greater distortion of VV2D, while VV3D stayed relatively constant. Maximum measurement difference between preset VV angle and VV2D was 9.8°, while the difference with VV3D was only 1.9°. The largest differences between the preset VV angle and VV2D were found when installing the leg in extreme angles, for example 15° valgus, 20° flexion and 20° internal rotation. CONCLUSIONS:After TKA, EOS VV3D were more valid than VV2D, indicating that 3D measurements compensate for malpositioning during acquisition. Caution is warranted when measuring VV angle on a conventional radiograph of a knee with a flexion contracture, varus or valgus angle and/or rotation of the knee joint during acquisition

Assessment of Prosthesis Alignment after Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty Using EOS 2D and 3D Imaging:A Reliability Study

INTRODUCTION: A new low-dose X-ray device, called EOS, has been introduced for determining lower-limb alignment in 2D and 3D. Reliability has not yet been assessed when using EOS on lower limbs containing a knee prosthesis. Therefore purpose of this study was to determine intraobserver and interobserver reliability of EOS 2D and 3D knee prosthesis alignment measurements after revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). METHODS: Forty anteroposterior and lateral images of 37 rTKA patients were included. Two observers independently performed measurements on these images twice. Varus/valgus angles were measured in 2D (VV2D) and 3D (VV3D). Intraclass correlation coefficients and the Bland and Altman method were used to determine reliability. T-tests were used to test potential differences. RESULTS: Intraobserver and interobserver reliability were excellent for VV2D and VV3D. No significant difference or bias between the first and second measurements or the two observers was found. A significant mean and absolute difference of respectively 1.00° and 1.61° existed between 2D and 3D measurements. CONCLUSIONS: EOS provides reliable varus/valgus measurements in 2D and 3D for the alignment of the knee joint with a knee prosthesis. However, significant differences exist between varus/valgus measurements in 2D and 3D

Do CAS measurements correlate with EOS 3D alignment measurements in primary TKA?

PURPOSE: Objective of this study was to compare intraoperative computer-assisted surgery (CAS) alignment measurements during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with pre- and postoperative coronal alignment measurements using EOS 3D reconstructions. METHODS: In a prospective study, 56 TKAs using imageless CAS were performed and coronal alignment measurements were recorded twice: before bone cuts were made and after implantation of the prosthesis. Pre- and postoperative coronal alignment measurements were performed using EOS 3D reconstructions. Thanks to the EOS radiostereography system, measurement errors due to malpositioning and deformity during acquisition are eliminated. CAS measurements were compared with EOS 3D reconstructions. Varus/valgus angle (VV), mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA) and mechanical medial proximal tibial angle (mMPTA) were measured. RESULTS: Significantly different VV angles were measured pre- and postoperatively with CAS compared to EOS. For preoperative measurements, mLDFA did not differ significantly, but a significantly larger mMPTA in valgus was measured with CAS. CONCLUSION: Results of this study indicate that differences in alignment measurements between CAS measurements and pre- and postoperative EOS 3D are due mainly to the difference between weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing position and potential errors in validity and reliability of the CAS system. EOS 3D measurements overestimate VV angle in lower limbs with substantial mechanical axis deviation. For lower limbs with minor mechanical axis deviation as well as for mMPTA measurements, CAS measures more valgus than EOS. Eventually the results of this study are of clinical relevance, since it raises concerns regarding the validity and reliability of CAS systems in TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IIb

Does Imageless Computer-assisted TKA Lead to Improved Rotational Alignment or Fewer Outliers?: A Systematic Review

Computer-assisted surgery (CAS) has been developed to enhance prosthetic alignment during primary TKAs. Imageless CAS improves coronal and sagittal alignment compared with conventional TKA. However, the effect of imageless CAS on rotational alignment remains unclear. We conducted a systematic and qualitative review of the current literature regarding the effectiveness of imageless CAS during TKA on (1) rotational alignment of the femoral and tibial components and tibiofemoral mismatch in terms of deviation from neutral rotation, and (2) the number of femoral and tibial rotational outliers. Data sources included PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. Study selection, data extraction, and methodologic quality assessment were conducted independently by two reviewers. Standardized mean difference with 95% CI was calculated for continuous variables (rotational alignment of the femoral or tibial component and tibiofemoral mismatch). To compare the number of outliers for femoral and tibial component rotation, the odds ratio and 95% CI were calculated. The literature search produced 657 potentially relevant studies, 17 of which met the inclusion criteria. One study was considered as having high methodologic quality, 15 studies had medium, and one study had low quality. Conflicting evidence was found for all outcome measures except for tibiofemoral mismatch. Moderate evidence was found that imageless CAS had no influence on postoperative tibiofemoral mismatch. The measurement protocol for measuring tibial rotation varied among the studies and in only one of the studies was the sample size calculation based on one of the outcome measures used in our systematic review. More studies of high methodologic quality and with a sample size calculation based on the outcome measures will be helpful to assess whether an imageless CAS TKA improves femoral and tibial rotational alignment and tibiofemoral mismatch or decreases the number of femoral and tibial rotational outliers. To statistically analyze the results of different studies, the same measurement protocol should be used among the studies

<b>Table 1.</b> Reported intraobserver and interobserver reliability of varus/valgus angle measured in 2D and 3D.

<p><b>Table 1.</b> Reported intraobserver and interobserver reliability of varus/valgus angle measured in 2D and 3D.</p

Adjustment of the landmarks on the frontal and lateral images.

<p>Adjustment of the landmarks on the frontal and lateral images.</p

Identification of the lower limb on the frontal image.

<p>Identification of the lower limb on the frontal image.</p

<b>Table 2.</b> Difference between 2D and 3D varus/valgus angle measurements.

<p><b>Table 2.</b> Difference between 2D and 3D varus/valgus angle measurements.</p