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

General Orthopaedics

PATIENT-SPECIFIC INSTRUMENTS CAN ACHIEVE A BETTER SURGICAL ACCURACY THAN NAVIGATION ASSISTANCE IN JOINT-PRESERVING SURGERY OF THE KNEE JOINT: A CADAVERIC COMPARATIVE STUDY

International Society of Computer-Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery (CAOS), 17th Annual Scientific Meeting, Aachen, June 2017



Abstract

Computer Assisted Surgery (CAS) and Patient Specific Instrumentation (PSI) have been reported to increase accuracy and predictability of tumour resections. The technically demanding joint-preserving surgery that retains the native joint with the better function may benefit from the new techniques. This cadaver study is to investigate the surgical accuracy of CAS and PSI in joint-preserving surgery of knee joint.

CT scans of four cadavers were performed and imported into an engineering software (MIMICS, Materialise) for the 3D surgical planning of simulated, multiplanar joint-preserving resections for distal femur or proximal tibia metaphyseal bone sarcoma. The planned resections were transferred to the navigation system (OrthoMap 3D, Stryker) for navigation planning and used for the design and fabrication of the PSI. Each of the four techniques (freehand, CAS, PSI and CAS + PSI) was used in four joint-preserving resections. Location accuracy (the maximum deviation of distance between the planned and the achieved resections) and bone resection time were measured. The results were compared by using t-test (statistically significant if P< 0.05).

Both the CAS+PSI and PSI techniques could reproduce the planned resections with a mean location accuracy of < 2 mm, compared to 3.6 mm for CAS assistance and 9.2 mm for the freehand technique. There was no statistical difference in location accuracy between the CAS+PSI and the PSI techniques (p=0.92) but a significant difference between the CAS technique and the CAS+PSI (p=0.042) or PSI technique (p=0.034) and the freehand technique with the other assisted techniques. The PSI technique took the lowest mean time of 4.78 ±0.97min for bone resections. This was significantly different from the CAS+PSI technique (mean 12.78 min; p < 0.001) and the CAS technique (mean 16.97 min; p = < 0.001).

CAS and PSI assisted techniques help reproduce the planned multiplanar resections. The PSI technique could achieve the most accurate bone resections (within 2mm error) with the least time for bone resections. Combining CAS with PSI might not improve surgical accuracy and might increase bone resection time. However, PSI placement on the bone surface depends only on the subjective feeling of surgeons and may not apply if the extraosseous tumor component is large. Combining CAS with PSI could address the limitations.