header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

VARUS AND VALGUS STRESS MEASUREMENTS USING NAVIGATION IN TKR PROVIDE A QUANTITATIVE METHOD OF SOFT TISSUE BALANCING



Abstract

Introduction: Accurate soft tissue balancing is an essential part of total knee replacement (TKR), but has been difficult to quantify using traditional instrumentation methods. Computer navigation systems allow us to accurately assess intra-operative kinematics, which are affected by soft tissue management. The aims of this study were to evaluate the role of varus and valgus stress measurements and subsequently devise an algorithm for soft tissue management during TKR.

Methods: We used the Orthopilot® CT-free navigation system during TKR for patients with primary end-stage arthritis. This was a prospective study with 71 patients collecting intra-operative kinematic data. 57 knees were varus, 13 valgus, and 1 well aligned.

Pre- and post-operatively, the surgeon applied a varus and valgus stress at maximum extension, recording the mechanical femorotibial (MFT) angle. There were no patellar resurfacings. We compared the kinematics of each varus knee. Based upon the kinematics and the surgeon’s experience the following medial releases were performed as usual and divided into three categories:

  1. No release (limited medial approach).

  2. Moderate release (postero-medial release including the semimembranosis).

  3. Proximal (extensive) release.

Results: Pre-operatively, the mean MFT angle was −9.6° (−3° to −22°) with varus stress and −0.8° (4° to −11°) with valgus stress. Post-operatively, the mean MFT angle was −3.7° (−1° to −7°) with varus stress, and 1.1° (4° to −3°) with valgus stress. Using regressional analysis, there was a strong linear correlation between both varus (r=0.742, p< 0.0001) and valgus (r=0.771, p< 0.0001) stresses and the MFT angle.

With the following medial releases, these kinematics were found:

  1. No release – MFT angle not less than −12° with varus stress, greater than 2° with valgus stress, and/or if extension deficit was not greater than 5°.

  2. Moderate release – MFT angle less than −12° with varus stress, between −5° and 2° with valgus stress, and/or extension deficit not greater than 5°.

  3. Proximal release – MFT angle less than −12° with varus stress, less than −5° with valgus stress, and/or extension deficit greater than 5°.

The results show that post-operatively, the mean MFT angle is maintained within a narrow range (−1° to −7° with varus stress, 4° to −3° with valgus stress). 5/57(9%) patients had a mean MFT angle of 6.4°(0° to 7°) with valgus stress, and were considered to have been over-corrected. There were no extension deficits.

Conclusions: Navigation allows us to quantify soft tissue balancing based upon the initial kinematics with varus and valgus stress testing. From these measurements, an algorithm was developed, which showed that an appropriate release was made in 52/57 (91%) patients, but this may require some adjustment to reduce the number of outlying results.

Correspondence should be addressed to Ms Larissa Welti, Scientific Secretary, EFORT Central Office, Technoparkstrasse 1, CH-8005 Zürich, Switzerland