An accelerometer-based navigation did not improve the femoral component positioning compared to a modified conventional technique of pre-operatively planned placement of intramedullary rod in total knee arthroplasty

AbstractTraditionally, a rigid intramedullary rod has been used as the reference guide for femoral cutting in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, correct positioning of this rigid rod is difficult, especially in the knees with severe distal femoral sagittal bowing. A flexible intramedullary rod has been developed to address this problem. This study was performed to compare the sagittal alignment and clinical outcomes of TKAs performed with flexible and rigid femoral intramedullary guides. Thirty-eight knees that underwent primary TKAs with flexible intramedullary rods as femoral cutting guides were matched according to patient height and sex with 38 knees that underwent TKAs using conventional rigid rods. Clinical outcomes, including the range of motion and functional scores, and radiological variables, including the distal femoral bowing angle (DFBA), femoral component flexion angle (FFA), and mediolateral overhang and anteroposterior (AP) oversizing of femoral components, were evaluated. Clinical and radiological outcomes did not differ significantly between the flexible rod and conventional rigid rod groups. A subgroup analysis of knees with severe distal femoral sagittal bowing (DFBA >4 degrees) showed that the FFA was significantly larger in the flexible rod group than in the rigid rod group, with an average difference of 3 degrees (5.2 ± 2.4 vs. 2.2 ± 1.6 degrees, respectively, p = 0.022). In addition, the incidence of AP oversizing of femoral components was lower in the flexible rod group than in the rigid rod group (11.1 vs. 60.0%, respectively, p = 0.027). Relative to TKA with a rigid rod, TKA performed with a flexible femoral intramedullary guide resulted in more flexed sagittal alignment of femoral components in patients with severe distal femoral sagittal bowing. This greater flexion of the femoral component resulted in less AP oversizing. However, the use of a flexible rod had no impact on short-term clinical outcomes.

Download Full-text

Isolated Liner Revision for Total Knee Arthroplasty Instability: A Road That Should Remain Less Taken

The Journal of Knee Surgery ◽

10.1055/s-0040-1721091 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Jason D. Tegethoff ◽

Rafael Walker-Santiago ◽

William M. Ralston ◽

James A. Keeney

Keyword(s):

Total Knee Arthroplasty ◽

Femoral Component ◽

Knee Arthroplasty ◽

Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty ◽

P Value ◽

Surgical Morbidity ◽

Exact Test ◽

Total Knee ◽

Component Revision

AbstractIsolated polyethylene liner exchange (IPLE) is infrequently selected as a treatment approach for patients with primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) prosthetic joint instability. Potential advantages of less immediate surgical morbidity, faster recovery, and lower procedural cost need to be measured against reoperation and re-revision risk. Few published studies have directly compared IPLE with combined tibial and femoral component revision to treat patients with primary TKA instability. After obtaining institutional review board (IRB) approval, we performed a retrospective comparison of 20 patients treated with IPLE and 126 patients treated with tibial and femoral component revisions at a single institution between 2011 and 2018. Patient demographic characteristics, medical comorbidities, time to initial revision TKA, and reoperation (90 days, <2 years, and >2 years) were assessed using paired Student's t-test or Fisher's exact test with a p-value <0.01 used to determine significance. Patients undergoing IPLE were more likely to undergo reoperation (60.0 vs. 17.5%, p = 0.001), component revision surgery (45.0 vs. 8.7%, p = 0.002), and component revision within 2 years (30.0 vs. 1.6%, p < 0.0001). Differences in 90-day reoperation (p = 0.14) and revision >2 years (p = 0.19) were not significant. Reoperation for instability (30.0 vs. 4.0%, p < 0.001) and infection (20.0 vs. 1.6%, p < 0.01) were both higher in the IPLE group. IPLE does not provide consistent benefits for patients undergoing TKA revision for instability. Considerations for lower immediate postoperative morbidity and cost need to be carefully measured against long-term consequences of reoperation, delayed component revision, and increased long-term costs of multiple surgical procedures. This is a level III, case–control study.

Download Full-text