Cargando…

Does improved instrumentation result in better component alignment in total knee arthroplasty?

Accurate component alignment and joint line reproduction in total knee replacement (TKR) is crucial for successful clinical outcome. Advances in instrumentation and better understanding of the biomechanics can help to achieve better three dimensional alignments of TKR components and joint line resto...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hassaballa, Mo, Budnar, Vijaya, Gbejuade, Herbert, Learmonth, Ian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: PAGEPress Publications 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3144000/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21808715
http://dx.doi.org/10.4081/or.2011.e3
_version_ 1782208964765679616
author Hassaballa, Mo
Budnar, Vijaya
Gbejuade, Herbert
Learmonth, Ian
author_facet Hassaballa, Mo
Budnar, Vijaya
Gbejuade, Herbert
Learmonth, Ian
author_sort Hassaballa, Mo
collection PubMed
description Accurate component alignment and joint line reproduction in total knee replacement (TKR) is crucial for successful clinical outcome. Advances in instrumentation and better understanding of the biomechanics can help to achieve better three dimensional alignments of TKR components and joint line restoration. We compared the accuracy of component alignment and joint line restoration with the use of 2 different TKR instrumentation kits (an older Gobot and a newer Xcelerate). Retrospective study of 150 consecutive patients undergoing primary TKR had their pre and post-operative x-rays reviewed. Seventy-five patients (group A) had their TKR using the older instrumentation kit (Gobot) and 75 (group B) had the newer version (Xcelerate). The positioning of the prosthesis components were assessed using the American Knee society radiographic evaluation method and the joint line position using the Figgie's method. The results from the two groups were statistically compared. There was a significantly greater elevation of the joint line position in TKRs done with the Gobot instrumentation (mean 4.49 mm vs. 2.71 mm in group B, P=0.03), and significant differences in the mean tibial component angle cTCA (group A 88.6°, group B 90.1°, P=0.04) and the mean Q angle (group A 6.28° valgus, group B 8.45° valgus, P=0.04). Use of the newer Xcelerate instrumentation was associated with better restoration of joint line position, however the femoral component flexion and posterior slope of the tibial component ere found to be above the desired level. Hence the overall differences between the two groups were found to be small.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3144000
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher PAGEPress Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31440002011-08-01 Does improved instrumentation result in better component alignment in total knee arthroplasty? Hassaballa, Mo Budnar, Vijaya Gbejuade, Herbert Learmonth, Ian Orthop Rev (Pavia) Article Accurate component alignment and joint line reproduction in total knee replacement (TKR) is crucial for successful clinical outcome. Advances in instrumentation and better understanding of the biomechanics can help to achieve better three dimensional alignments of TKR components and joint line restoration. We compared the accuracy of component alignment and joint line restoration with the use of 2 different TKR instrumentation kits (an older Gobot and a newer Xcelerate). Retrospective study of 150 consecutive patients undergoing primary TKR had their pre and post-operative x-rays reviewed. Seventy-five patients (group A) had their TKR using the older instrumentation kit (Gobot) and 75 (group B) had the newer version (Xcelerate). The positioning of the prosthesis components were assessed using the American Knee society radiographic evaluation method and the joint line position using the Figgie's method. The results from the two groups were statistically compared. There was a significantly greater elevation of the joint line position in TKRs done with the Gobot instrumentation (mean 4.49 mm vs. 2.71 mm in group B, P=0.03), and significant differences in the mean tibial component angle cTCA (group A 88.6°, group B 90.1°, P=0.04) and the mean Q angle (group A 6.28° valgus, group B 8.45° valgus, P=0.04). Use of the newer Xcelerate instrumentation was associated with better restoration of joint line position, however the femoral component flexion and posterior slope of the tibial component ere found to be above the desired level. Hence the overall differences between the two groups were found to be small. PAGEPress Publications 2011-03-17 /pmc/articles/PMC3144000/ /pubmed/21808715 http://dx.doi.org/10.4081/or.2011.e3 Text en ©Copyright M. Hassaballa et al., 2011 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License (by-nc 3.0). Licensee PAGEPress, Italy
spellingShingle Article
Hassaballa, Mo
Budnar, Vijaya
Gbejuade, Herbert
Learmonth, Ian
Does improved instrumentation result in better component alignment in total knee arthroplasty?
title Does improved instrumentation result in better component alignment in total knee arthroplasty?
title_full Does improved instrumentation result in better component alignment in total knee arthroplasty?
title_fullStr Does improved instrumentation result in better component alignment in total knee arthroplasty?
title_full_unstemmed Does improved instrumentation result in better component alignment in total knee arthroplasty?
title_short Does improved instrumentation result in better component alignment in total knee arthroplasty?
title_sort does improved instrumentation result in better component alignment in total knee arthroplasty?
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3144000/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21808715
http://dx.doi.org/10.4081/or.2011.e3
work_keys_str_mv AT hassaballamo doesimprovedinstrumentationresultinbettercomponentalignmentintotalkneearthroplasty
AT budnarvijaya doesimprovedinstrumentationresultinbettercomponentalignmentintotalkneearthroplasty
AT gbejuadeherbert doesimprovedinstrumentationresultinbettercomponentalignmentintotalkneearthroplasty
AT learmonthian doesimprovedinstrumentationresultinbettercomponentalignmentintotalkneearthroplasty