Cargando…

Patient-Specific Instrumentation Accuracy Evaluated with 3D Virtual Models

There have been remarkable advances in knee replacement surgery over the last few decades. One of the concerns continues to be the accuracy in achieving the desired alignment. Patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) was developed to increase component placement accuracy, but the available evidence is...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: León-Muñoz, Vicente J., Parrinello, Andrea, Manca, Silvio, Galloni, Gianluca, López-López, Mirian, Martínez-Martínez, Francisco, Santonja-Medina, Fernando
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8036812/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33916110
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10071439
_version_ 1783676997921144832
author León-Muñoz, Vicente J.
Parrinello, Andrea
Manca, Silvio
Galloni, Gianluca
López-López, Mirian
Martínez-Martínez, Francisco
Santonja-Medina, Fernando
author_facet León-Muñoz, Vicente J.
Parrinello, Andrea
Manca, Silvio
Galloni, Gianluca
López-López, Mirian
Martínez-Martínez, Francisco
Santonja-Medina, Fernando
author_sort León-Muñoz, Vicente J.
collection PubMed
description There have been remarkable advances in knee replacement surgery over the last few decades. One of the concerns continues to be the accuracy in achieving the desired alignment. Patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) was developed to increase component placement accuracy, but the available evidence is not conclusive. Our study aimed to determine a PSI system’s three-dimensional accuracy on 3D virtual models obtained by post-operative computed tomography. We compared the angular placement values of 35 total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) operated within a year obtained with the planned ones, and we analyzed the possible relationships between alignment and patient-reported outcomes. The mean (SD) discrepancies measured by two experienced engineers to the planned values observed were 1.64° (1.3°) for the hip–knee–ankle angle, 1.45° (1.06°) for the supplementary angle of the femoral lateral distal angle, 1.44° (0.97°) for the proximal medial tibial angle, 2.28° (1.78°) for tibial slope, 0.64° (1.09°) for femoral sagittal flexion, and 1.42° (1.06°) for femoral rotation. Neither variables related to post-operative alignment nor the proportion of change between pre-and post-operative alignment influenced the patient-reported outcomes. The evaluated PSI system’s three-dimensional alignment analysis showed a statistically significant difference between the angular values planned and those obtained. However, we did not find a relevant effect size, and this slight discrepancy did not impact the clinical outcome.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8036812
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80368122021-04-12 Patient-Specific Instrumentation Accuracy Evaluated with 3D Virtual Models León-Muñoz, Vicente J. Parrinello, Andrea Manca, Silvio Galloni, Gianluca López-López, Mirian Martínez-Martínez, Francisco Santonja-Medina, Fernando J Clin Med Article There have been remarkable advances in knee replacement surgery over the last few decades. One of the concerns continues to be the accuracy in achieving the desired alignment. Patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) was developed to increase component placement accuracy, but the available evidence is not conclusive. Our study aimed to determine a PSI system’s three-dimensional accuracy on 3D virtual models obtained by post-operative computed tomography. We compared the angular placement values of 35 total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) operated within a year obtained with the planned ones, and we analyzed the possible relationships between alignment and patient-reported outcomes. The mean (SD) discrepancies measured by two experienced engineers to the planned values observed were 1.64° (1.3°) for the hip–knee–ankle angle, 1.45° (1.06°) for the supplementary angle of the femoral lateral distal angle, 1.44° (0.97°) for the proximal medial tibial angle, 2.28° (1.78°) for tibial slope, 0.64° (1.09°) for femoral sagittal flexion, and 1.42° (1.06°) for femoral rotation. Neither variables related to post-operative alignment nor the proportion of change between pre-and post-operative alignment influenced the patient-reported outcomes. The evaluated PSI system’s three-dimensional alignment analysis showed a statistically significant difference between the angular values planned and those obtained. However, we did not find a relevant effect size, and this slight discrepancy did not impact the clinical outcome. MDPI 2021-04-01 /pmc/articles/PMC8036812/ /pubmed/33916110 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10071439 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
León-Muñoz, Vicente J.
Parrinello, Andrea
Manca, Silvio
Galloni, Gianluca
López-López, Mirian
Martínez-Martínez, Francisco
Santonja-Medina, Fernando
Patient-Specific Instrumentation Accuracy Evaluated with 3D Virtual Models
title Patient-Specific Instrumentation Accuracy Evaluated with 3D Virtual Models
title_full Patient-Specific Instrumentation Accuracy Evaluated with 3D Virtual Models
title_fullStr Patient-Specific Instrumentation Accuracy Evaluated with 3D Virtual Models
title_full_unstemmed Patient-Specific Instrumentation Accuracy Evaluated with 3D Virtual Models
title_short Patient-Specific Instrumentation Accuracy Evaluated with 3D Virtual Models
title_sort patient-specific instrumentation accuracy evaluated with 3d virtual models
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8036812/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33916110
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10071439
work_keys_str_mv AT leonmunozvicentej patientspecificinstrumentationaccuracyevaluatedwith3dvirtualmodels
AT parrinelloandrea patientspecificinstrumentationaccuracyevaluatedwith3dvirtualmodels
AT mancasilvio patientspecificinstrumentationaccuracyevaluatedwith3dvirtualmodels
AT gallonigianluca patientspecificinstrumentationaccuracyevaluatedwith3dvirtualmodels
AT lopezlopezmirian patientspecificinstrumentationaccuracyevaluatedwith3dvirtualmodels
AT martinezmartinezfrancisco patientspecificinstrumentationaccuracyevaluatedwith3dvirtualmodels
AT santonjamedinafernando patientspecificinstrumentationaccuracyevaluatedwith3dvirtualmodels