Cargando…

The impact of patient-specific instrumentation on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomised controlled study

PURPOSE: Patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) has been proposed as a means of improving surgical accuracy and ease of implantation during technically challenging procedures such as unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). The purpose of this prospective randomised controlled trial was to compare...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Alvand, Abtin, Khan, Tanvir, Jenkins, Cathy, Rees, Jonathan L., Jackson, William F., Dodd, Christopher A. F., Murray, David W., Price, Andrew J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5966491/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28831554
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4677-5
_version_ 1783325470057562112
author Alvand, Abtin
Khan, Tanvir
Jenkins, Cathy
Rees, Jonathan L.
Jackson, William F.
Dodd, Christopher A. F.
Murray, David W.
Price, Andrew J.
author_facet Alvand, Abtin
Khan, Tanvir
Jenkins, Cathy
Rees, Jonathan L.
Jackson, William F.
Dodd, Christopher A. F.
Murray, David W.
Price, Andrew J.
author_sort Alvand, Abtin
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) has been proposed as a means of improving surgical accuracy and ease of implantation during technically challenging procedures such as unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). The purpose of this prospective randomised controlled trial was to compare the accuracy of implantation and functional outcome of mobile-bearing medial UKAs implanted with and without PSI by experienced UKA surgeons. METHODS: Mobile-bearing medial UKAs were implanted in 43 patients using either PSI guides or conventional instrumentation. Intra-operative measurements, meniscal bearing size implanted, and post-operative radiographic analyses were performed to assess component positioning. Functional outcome was determined using the Oxford Knee Score (OKS). RESULTS: PSI guides could not be used in three cases due to concerns regarding accuracy and registration onto native anatomy, particularly on the tibial side. In general, similar component alignment and positioning was achieved using the two systems (n.s. for coronal/sagittal alignment and tibial coverage). The PSI group had greater tibial slope (p = 0.029). The control group had a higher number of optimum size meniscal bearing inserted (95 vs 52%; p = 0.001). There were no differences in OKS improvements (n.s). CONCLUSION: Component positioning for the two groups was similar for the femur but less accurate on the tibial side using PSI, often with some unnecessarily deep resections of the tibial plateau. Although PSI was comparable to conventional instrumentation based on OKS improvements at 12 months, we continue to use conventional instrumentation for UKA at our institution until further improvements to the PSI guides can be demonstrated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, Level I.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5966491
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59664912018-06-04 The impact of patient-specific instrumentation on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomised controlled study Alvand, Abtin Khan, Tanvir Jenkins, Cathy Rees, Jonathan L. Jackson, William F. Dodd, Christopher A. F. Murray, David W. Price, Andrew J. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Knee PURPOSE: Patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) has been proposed as a means of improving surgical accuracy and ease of implantation during technically challenging procedures such as unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). The purpose of this prospective randomised controlled trial was to compare the accuracy of implantation and functional outcome of mobile-bearing medial UKAs implanted with and without PSI by experienced UKA surgeons. METHODS: Mobile-bearing medial UKAs were implanted in 43 patients using either PSI guides or conventional instrumentation. Intra-operative measurements, meniscal bearing size implanted, and post-operative radiographic analyses were performed to assess component positioning. Functional outcome was determined using the Oxford Knee Score (OKS). RESULTS: PSI guides could not be used in three cases due to concerns regarding accuracy and registration onto native anatomy, particularly on the tibial side. In general, similar component alignment and positioning was achieved using the two systems (n.s. for coronal/sagittal alignment and tibial coverage). The PSI group had greater tibial slope (p = 0.029). The control group had a higher number of optimum size meniscal bearing inserted (95 vs 52%; p = 0.001). There were no differences in OKS improvements (n.s). CONCLUSION: Component positioning for the two groups was similar for the femur but less accurate on the tibial side using PSI, often with some unnecessarily deep resections of the tibial plateau. Although PSI was comparable to conventional instrumentation based on OKS improvements at 12 months, we continue to use conventional instrumentation for UKA at our institution until further improvements to the PSI guides can be demonstrated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, Level I. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2017-08-22 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC5966491/ /pubmed/28831554 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4677-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Knee
Alvand, Abtin
Khan, Tanvir
Jenkins, Cathy
Rees, Jonathan L.
Jackson, William F.
Dodd, Christopher A. F.
Murray, David W.
Price, Andrew J.
The impact of patient-specific instrumentation on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomised controlled study
title The impact of patient-specific instrumentation on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomised controlled study
title_full The impact of patient-specific instrumentation on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomised controlled study
title_fullStr The impact of patient-specific instrumentation on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomised controlled study
title_full_unstemmed The impact of patient-specific instrumentation on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomised controlled study
title_short The impact of patient-specific instrumentation on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomised controlled study
title_sort impact of patient-specific instrumentation on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomised controlled study
topic Knee
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5966491/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28831554
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4677-5
work_keys_str_mv AT alvandabtin theimpactofpatientspecificinstrumentationonunicompartmentalkneearthroplastyaprospectiverandomisedcontrolledstudy
AT khantanvir theimpactofpatientspecificinstrumentationonunicompartmentalkneearthroplastyaprospectiverandomisedcontrolledstudy
AT jenkinscathy theimpactofpatientspecificinstrumentationonunicompartmentalkneearthroplastyaprospectiverandomisedcontrolledstudy
AT reesjonathanl theimpactofpatientspecificinstrumentationonunicompartmentalkneearthroplastyaprospectiverandomisedcontrolledstudy
AT jacksonwilliamf theimpactofpatientspecificinstrumentationonunicompartmentalkneearthroplastyaprospectiverandomisedcontrolledstudy
AT doddchristopheraf theimpactofpatientspecificinstrumentationonunicompartmentalkneearthroplastyaprospectiverandomisedcontrolledstudy
AT murraydavidw theimpactofpatientspecificinstrumentationonunicompartmentalkneearthroplastyaprospectiverandomisedcontrolledstudy
AT priceandrewj theimpactofpatientspecificinstrumentationonunicompartmentalkneearthroplastyaprospectiverandomisedcontrolledstudy
AT alvandabtin impactofpatientspecificinstrumentationonunicompartmentalkneearthroplastyaprospectiverandomisedcontrolledstudy
AT khantanvir impactofpatientspecificinstrumentationonunicompartmentalkneearthroplastyaprospectiverandomisedcontrolledstudy
AT jenkinscathy impactofpatientspecificinstrumentationonunicompartmentalkneearthroplastyaprospectiverandomisedcontrolledstudy
AT reesjonathanl impactofpatientspecificinstrumentationonunicompartmentalkneearthroplastyaprospectiverandomisedcontrolledstudy
AT jacksonwilliamf impactofpatientspecificinstrumentationonunicompartmentalkneearthroplastyaprospectiverandomisedcontrolledstudy
AT doddchristopheraf impactofpatientspecificinstrumentationonunicompartmentalkneearthroplastyaprospectiverandomisedcontrolledstudy
AT murraydavidw impactofpatientspecificinstrumentationonunicompartmentalkneearthroplastyaprospectiverandomisedcontrolledstudy
AT priceandrewj impactofpatientspecificinstrumentationonunicompartmentalkneearthroplastyaprospectiverandomisedcontrolledstudy