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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rivière, Charles, Lazic, Stefan, Boughton, Oliver, Wiart, Yann, Vïllet, Loic, Cobb, Justin
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