NAVIGATED REVISION TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT

Abstract

Revision total knee replacement (TKR) is a challenging procedure, especially because most of the standard bony and ligamentous landmarks used during primary TKR are lost due to the index implantation. However, as for primary TKR, restoration of the joint line, adequate limb axis correction and ligamentous stability are considered critical for the short- and long- term outcome of revision TKR. There is no available data about the range of tolerable leg alignment after revision TKR. However, it is logical to assume that the same range than after primary TKR might be accepted, that is ± 3° off the neutral alignment. One might also assume that the conventional instruments, which rely on visual or anatomical alignments or intra- or extra-medullary rods, are associated with significant higher variation of the leg axis correction, especially in cases with significant bone loss which prevents to control the exact location of the usual, relevant landmarks. Navigation system might address this issue.

We used an image-free system (ORTHOPILOT TM, AESCULAP, FRG) for routine implantation of primary TKR. The standard software was used for revision TKR. Registration of anatomic and cinematic data was performed with the index implant left in place. The components were then removed. New bone cuts as necessary were performed under the control of the navigation system. The size of the implants and their thickness was chosen after simulation of the residual laxities, and ligament balance was adapted to the simulation results. The system did not allow navigation for intra-medullary stem extensions and any bone filling which may have been required. This technique was used for 54 patients. The accuracy of implantation was assessed by measuring following angles on the post-operative long-leg radiographs: mechanical femoro-tibial angle (normal = 0°, varus deformation was described with a positive angle); coronal orientation of the femoral component in comparison to the mechanical femoral axis (normal = 90°, varus deformation was described with an angle < 90°); coronal orientation of the tibial component in comparison to the mechanical tibial axis (normal = 90°, varus deformation was described with an angle < 90°); sagittal orientation of the tibial component in comparison to the proximal posterior tibial cortex (normal = 90°, flexion deformation was described with angle < 90°).

Individual analysis was performed as follows: one point was given for each fulfilled item, giving a maximal accuracy note of 4 points. Prosthesis implantation was considered as satisfactory when the accuracy note was 4 (all fulfilled items). The rate of globally satisfactory implanted prostheses and the rate of prostheses implanted within the desired range for each criterion were recorded.

Limb alignment was restored in 88%. The coronal orientation of the femoral component was acceptable in 92% of the cases. The coronal orientation of the tibial component was acceptable in 89% of the cases. The sagittal orientation of the tibial component was acceptable in 87% of the cases. Overall, 78% of the implants were oriented satisfactorily for the four criteria.

The navigation system enables reaching the implantation objectives for implant position and ligament balance in the large majority of cases, with a rate similar to that obtained for primary TKA. The navigation system is a useful aid for these often difficult operations, where the visual information is often misleading.