Single-use and patient-specific instrumentation can be reliably used in primary total knee arthroplasty

patient-specific-knee

Can a Single-Use and Patient-Specific Instrumentation Be Reliably Used in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty? A Multicenter Controlled Study, by Abane et al. Arthroplasty (2018)

Abstract

Background
The aim of this controlled multicenter study is to evaluate the clinical and radiologic outcomes of primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using single-use fully disposable and patient-specific cutting guides (SU) and compare the results to those obtained with traditional patient-specific cutting guides (PSI) vs conventional instrumentation (CI).

Methods
Seventy consecutive patients had their TKA performed using SU. They were compared to 140 historical patients requiring TKA that were randomized to have the procedure performed using PSI vs CI. The primary measure outcome was mechanical axis as measured on a standing long-leg radiograph using the hip-knee-ankle angle. Secondary outcome measures were Knee Society and Oxford knee scores, operative time, need for postoperative transfusion, and length of hospital stay.

Results
The mean hip-knee-ankle value was 179.8° (standard deviation [SD] 3.1°), 179.2° (SD 2.9°), and 178.3° (SD 2.5°) in the CI, PSI and SU groups, respectively (P = .0082). Outliers were identified in 16 of 65 (24.6%), 15 of 67 (22.4%), and 14 of 70 (20.0%) knees in the CI, PSI, and SU group, respectively (P = .81). There was no significant difference in the clinical results (P = .29 and .19, respectively). Operative time, number of unit transfusion, and length of hospital stay were not significantly different between the 3 groups (P = .45, .31, and 0.98, respectively).

Conclusion
The use of an SU in TKA provided similar clinical and radiologic results to those obtained with traditional PSI and CI. The potential economic advantages of single-use instrumentation in primary TKA require further investigation.

Keywords
total knee arthroplastysingle useinstrumentationpatient specificoutcomes

Level of Evidence
Therapeutic Level II

How pelvic tilt influences intraoperative digital radiography in total hip arthroplasty

pelvis-radiograph-tha

Digital Radiography in Total Hip Arthroplasty: Technique and Radiographic Results, by Penenberg et al. JBJS (2018) 100 (3): 226

Abstract:

Background:
Obtaining the ideal acetabular cup position in total hip arthroplasty remains a challenge. Advancements in digital radiography and image analysis software allow the assessment of the cup position during the surgical procedure. This study describes a validated technique for evaluating cup position during total hip arthroplasty using digital radiography.

Methods:
Three hundred and sixty-nine consecutive patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty were prospectively enrolled. Preoperative supine anteroposterior pelvic radiographs were made. Intraoperative anteroposterior pelvic radiographs were made with the patient in the lateral decubitus position. Radiographic beam angle adjustments and operative table adjustments were made to approximate rotation and tilt of the preoperative radiograph. The target for cup position was 30° to 50° abduction and 15° to 35° anteversion. Intraoperative radiographic measurements were calculated and final cup position was determined after strict impingement and range-of-motion testing. Postoperative anteroposterior pelvic radiographs were made. Two independent observers remeasured all abduction and anteversion angles.

Results:
Of the cups, 97.8% were placed within 30° to 50° of abduction, with a mean angle (and standard deviation) of 39.5° ± 4.6°. The 2.2% of cups placed outside the target zone were placed so purposefully on the basis of intraoperative range-of-motion testing and patient factors, and 97.6% of cups were placed between 15° and 35° of anteversion, with a mean angle of 26.6° ± 4.7°. Twenty-eight percent of cups were repositioned on the basis of intraoperative measurements. Subluxation during range-of-motion testing occurred in 3% of hips despite acceptable measurements, necessitating cup repositioning. There was 1 early anterior dislocation.

Conclusions:
Placing the acetabular component within a target range is a critical component to minimizing dislocation and polyethylene wear in total hip arthroplasty. Using digital radiography, we positioned the acetabular component in our desired target zone in 97.8% of cases and outside the target zone, purposefully, in 2.2% of cases. When used in conjunction with strict impingement testing, digital radiography allows for predictable cup placement in total hip arthroplasty.

The safe zone range for cup anteversion is narrower than for inclination in THA

THA-cup-anteversion-safe-zone

The Safe Zone Range for Cup Anteversion Is Narrower Than for Inclination in THA by William et al. CORR (2018) 476 (2): 325–335.

Abstract:

Background Cup malposition is a common cause of impingement, limitation of ROM, acceleration of bearing wear, liner fracture, and instability in THA. Previous studies of the safe zone based on plain radiographs have limitations inherent to measuring angles from two-dimensional projections. The current study uses CT to measure component position in stable and unstable hips to assess the presence of a safe zone for cup position in THA.

Questions/purposes (1) Does acetabular component orientation, when measured on CT, differ in stable components and those revised for recurrent instability? (2) Do CT data support historic safe zone definitions for component orientation in THA?

Methods We identified 34 hips that had undergone revision of the acetabulum for recurrent instability that also had a CT scan of the pelvis between August 2003 and February 2017. We also identified 175 patients with stable hip replacements who also had a CT study for preoperative planning and intraoperative navigation of the contralateral side. For each CT study, one observer analyzed major factors including acetabular orientation, femoral anteversion, combined anteversion (the sum of femoral and anatomic anteversion), pelvic tilt, total offset difference, head diameter, age, sex, and body mass index. These measures were then compared among stable hips, hips with cup revision for anterior instability, and hips with cup revision for posterior instability. We used a clinically relevant measurement of operative anteversion and inclination as opposed to the historic use of radiographic anteversion and inclination. The percentage of unstable hips in the historic Lewinnek safe zone was calculated, and a new safe zone was proposed based on an area with no unstable hips.

Results Anteriorly unstable hips compared with stable hips had higher operative anteversion of the cup (44° ± 12° versus 31° ± 11°, respectively; mean difference, 13°; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5°-21°; p = 0.003), tilt-adjusted operative anteversion of the cup (40° ± 6° versus 26° ± 10°, respectively; mean difference, 14°; 95% CI, 10°-18°; p < 0.001), and combined tilt-adjusted anteversion of the cup (64° ± 10° versus 54° ± 19°, respectively; mean difference, 10°; 95% CI, 1°-19°; p = 0.028). Posteriorly unstable hips compared with stable hips had lower operative anteversion of the cup (19° ± 15° versus 31° ± 11°, respectively; mean difference, -12°; 95% CI, -5° to -18°; p = 0.001), tilt-adjusted operative anteversion of the cup (19° ± 13° versus 26° ± 10°, respectively; mean difference, -8°; 95% CI, -14° to -2°; p = 0.014), pelvic tilt (0° ± 6° versus 4° ± 6°, respectively; mean difference, -4°; 95% CI, -7° to -1°; p = 0.007), and anatomic cup anteversion (25° ± 18° versus 34° ± 12°, respectively; mean difference, -9°; 95% CI, -1° to -17°; p = 0.033). Thirty-two percent of the unstable hips were located in the Lewinnek safe zone (11 of 34; 10 posterior dislocations, one anterior dislocation). In addition, a safe zone with no unstable hips was identified within 43° ± 12° of operative inclination and 31° ± 8° of tilt-adjusted operative anteversion. Conclusions The current study supports the notion of a safe zone for acetabular component orientation based on CT. However, the results demonstrate that the historic Lewinnek safe zone is not a reliable predictor of future stability. Analysis of tilt-adjusted operative anteversion and operative inclination demonstrates a new safe zone where no hips were revised for recurrent instability that is narrower for tilt-adjusted operative anteversion than for operative inclination. Tilt-adjusted operative anteversion is significantly different between stable and unstable hips, and surgeons should therefore prioritize assessment of preoperative pelvic tilt and accurate placement in operative anteversion. With improvements in patient-specific cup orientation goals and acetabular component placement, further refinement of a safe zone with CT data may reduce the incidence of cup malposition and its associated complications.

Level of Evidence
: Level III, diagnostic study.