Correct alignment is important for success in total knee replacement. Currently this is achieved by a combination of intramedullary and extramedullary alignment using jigs and cutting blocks. This multicentre study evaluates the use of computer assisted planning and the interactive guidance of instruments for total knee replacement. Prior to surgery computer scans of the hip, knee and ankle were performed of patients enrolled in the study. Pre operative planning of the position and size of the knee components was performed by the surgeon using a CT based Vector Vision Navigation System (Brain LAB AG, Heimstetten, Germany). P.F.C.x (De Puy Leeds UK) knee replacements were then implanted in 38 patients. Surgery was carried out according to the standard surgical technique using traditional instruments. Information of the planned and intraoperatively recorded position of the cutting blocks were analysed to check varus/valgus alignment, flexion/extension alignment, the amount of planned resection from both the femoral and tibial bones and the size of the components. Information from all the separate centres was sent to a central data processing base for analysis. Results were calculated comparing the differences between the planned and performed cuts for each of the different variables studied. Graphs demonstrate the differences in the alignment between that planned by the surgical navigation system and what was actually carried out by the instrumented cuts. Based on the data obtained from the multicentre study we have concluded that the planned position of the implants using the standard instruments was similar to that using the Vector Vision Navigation System. We believe that it is safe to proceed with surgical navigation total knee arthroplasty using the P.F.C.x total knee prosthesis with Image Guided Surgery and a further multicentre study is currently underway evaluating this.
Before proceeding to longer-term studies, we have studied the early clinical results of a new mobile-bearing total knee prosthesis in comparison with an established fixed-bearing device. Patients requiring bilateral knee replacement consented to have their operations under one anaesthetic using one of each prosthesis. They also agreed to accept the random choice of knee (right or left) and to remain ignorant as to which side had which implant. Outcomes were measured using the American Knee Society Score (AKSS), the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), and determination of the range of movement and pain scores before and at one year after operation. Preoperatively, there was no systematic difference between the right and left knees. One patient died in the perioperative period and one mobile-bearing prosthesis required early revision for dislocation of the meniscal component. At one year the mean AKSS, OKS and pain scores for the new device were slightly better (p <
0.025) than those for the fixed-bearing device. There was no difference in the range of movement. We believe that this is the first controlled, blinded trial to compare early function of a new knee prosthesis with that of a standard implant. It demonstrates a small but significant clinical advantage for the mobile-bearing design.
Results at one year (TMK first): AKSS(Knee) 91.6 / 84.1 (p=0.003), OKS 39.8 / 37.6 (p=0.006), ROM 104 / 104 (p=0.364), Pain (AKSS) 47.3 / 41.7 (p=0.01), Pain (OKS) 3.5 / 2.9 (p=0.006).
We assessed the efficacy of intraoperative frozen-section histology in detecting infection in failed arthroplasties in 106 hips and knees. We found inflammatory changes consistent with infection (an average of one or more neutrophil polymorphs or plasma cells per high-power field in several samples) in 18 cases; there was a significant growth on bacterial culture in 20 cases. Compared with the bacterial cultures, the frozen sections provided two false-negative results and three false-positive results (sensitivity, 90%; specificity, 96%; and accuracy, 95%). The positive predictive value was 88%, the negative value, 98%. These results support the inclusion of intra-operative frozen-section histology in any protocol for revision arthroplasty for loose components.