Cargando…
Current concepts for aligning knee implants: patient-specific or systematic?
Mechanical or anatomical alignment techniques create a supposedly ‘biomechanically friendly’ but often functionally limited prosthetic knee. Alternative techniques for alignment in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) aim at being more anatomical and patient-specific, aiming to improve functional outcomes...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5890125/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29657839 http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.3.170021 |
_version_ | 1783312808007434240 |
---|---|
author | Rivière, Charles Lazic, Stefan Boughton, Oliver Wiart, Yann Vïllet, Loic Cobb, Justin |
author_facet | Rivière, Charles Lazic, Stefan Boughton, Oliver Wiart, Yann Vïllet, Loic Cobb, Justin |
author_sort | Rivière, Charles |
collection | PubMed |
description | Mechanical or anatomical alignment techniques create a supposedly ‘biomechanically friendly’ but often functionally limited prosthetic knee. Alternative techniques for alignment in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) aim at being more anatomical and patient-specific, aiming to improve functional outcomes after TKA. The kinematic alignment (KA) technique for TKA has shown good early clinical outcomes. Its role in extreme anatomical variation remains to be defined. The restricted KA technique for TKA might be a reasonable option for patients with extreme anatomical variation. While unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has many advantages over TKA, the revision rate remains higher compared with TKA. One major explanation is the relative ease with which a UKA can be converted to a TKA, compared with revising a TKA. This can be considered as an additional advantage of UKA. Another reason is that surgeons favour revising a UKA to a TKA in cases of degeneration of the other femorotibial compartment rather than performing a relatively simple re-operation of the knee by doing an additional UKA (staged bi-UKA). Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2018;3:1–6. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.170021 |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5890125 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-58901252018-04-13 Current concepts for aligning knee implants: patient-specific or systematic? Rivière, Charles Lazic, Stefan Boughton, Oliver Wiart, Yann Vïllet, Loic Cobb, Justin EFORT Open Rev Knee Mechanical or anatomical alignment techniques create a supposedly ‘biomechanically friendly’ but often functionally limited prosthetic knee. Alternative techniques for alignment in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) aim at being more anatomical and patient-specific, aiming to improve functional outcomes after TKA. The kinematic alignment (KA) technique for TKA has shown good early clinical outcomes. Its role in extreme anatomical variation remains to be defined. The restricted KA technique for TKA might be a reasonable option for patients with extreme anatomical variation. While unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has many advantages over TKA, the revision rate remains higher compared with TKA. One major explanation is the relative ease with which a UKA can be converted to a TKA, compared with revising a TKA. This can be considered as an additional advantage of UKA. Another reason is that surgeons favour revising a UKA to a TKA in cases of degeneration of the other femorotibial compartment rather than performing a relatively simple re-operation of the knee by doing an additional UKA (staged bi-UKA). Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2018;3:1–6. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.170021 British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery 2018-01-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5890125/ /pubmed/29657839 http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.3.170021 Text en © 2018 The author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed. |
spellingShingle | Knee Rivière, Charles Lazic, Stefan Boughton, Oliver Wiart, Yann Vïllet, Loic Cobb, Justin Current concepts for aligning knee implants: patient-specific or systematic? |
title | Current concepts for aligning knee implants: patient-specific or systematic? |
title_full | Current concepts for aligning knee implants: patient-specific or systematic? |
title_fullStr | Current concepts for aligning knee implants: patient-specific or systematic? |
title_full_unstemmed | Current concepts for aligning knee implants: patient-specific or systematic? |
title_short | Current concepts for aligning knee implants: patient-specific or systematic? |
title_sort | current concepts for aligning knee implants: patient-specific or systematic? |
topic | Knee |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5890125/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29657839 http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.3.170021 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT rivierecharles currentconceptsforaligningkneeimplantspatientspecificorsystematic AT lazicstefan currentconceptsforaligningkneeimplantspatientspecificorsystematic AT boughtonoliver currentconceptsforaligningkneeimplantspatientspecificorsystematic AT wiartyann currentconceptsforaligningkneeimplantspatientspecificorsystematic AT villetloic currentconceptsforaligningkneeimplantspatientspecificorsystematic AT cobbjustin currentconceptsforaligningkneeimplantspatientspecificorsystematic |