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

Does Implant Design Influence the Accuracy of Patient Specific Instrumentation in TKA?

International Society for Technology in Arthroplasty (ISTA)



Abstract

Introduction:

Patient specific instrumentation (PSI) generates customized guides from a magnetic resonance imaging based preoperative plan for use in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). PSI software must be able to accommodate differences in implant design. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether any differences in the accuracy of limb alignment, component alignment, component sizing, or bony resection could be identified in patients undergoing PSI TKA with identical PSI software and one of two different implant systems.

Methods:

In this case-control study, two different implant systems from the same manufacturer were evaluated in 37 consecutive PSI TKA (Group 1) and 123 consecutive PSI TKA (Group 2) performed by a single surgeon. A third group (Group 3) consisted of 12 consecutive TKA performed with manual instrumentation and the same implant system as Group 1. Identical software was used to generate a preoperative plan from which planned limb alignment, component alignment, component sizes, and bony resection were determined. Intraoperatively, actual component sizes, bony resection, and recut frequency were determined. Long-standing and lateral radiographs were obtained preoperatively and 4-weeks postoperatively to evaluate limb and component alignment.

Results:

Groups were similar with regard to age, gender, BMI, and preoperative alignment. No differences in the accuracy of limb alignment, component alignment, component sizing, or PSI-planned versus actual resection were found between Groups 1 and 2. The rate of recuts required was lower in Group 1 than Group 2 for the proximal tibia (3% vs. 35%; p < 0.05). No differences were found in limb alignment, component alignment, or bony resection between the Groups 1 and 3. Group 1 showed less variation than Group 3 in resection depth of the posterior femur (SD 1.4 mm vs. 2.1 mm) and proximal tibia (SD 1.5 mm vs. 2.3 mm).

Discussion:

No discernible differences in the accuracy of limb alignment, component alignment, and component sizing were found between Groups 1 and 2. Group 1 required fewer recuts than Group 2 for the proximal tibia. There may be characteristics of implant design, e.g. the slope of the tibial plateau, that may influence the ability of PSI to accurately determine cut thickness. No differences in limb alignment, component alignment, or bony resection were identified between Groups 1 and 3. Group 1 showed less variability in resection depth than Group 3 in the posterior femur and proximal tibia. This study suggests that PSI can be equally accurate for different implant systems. For a given implant system, PSI shows less variation in resection depth when compared to manual instrumentation.


*Email: