European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2016
Verification of in vivo accuracy of Trumatch™ patient-specific instrumentation in total knee replacement using pin-less computer navigation.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Briffa Nikolai, Imam Mohamed A, Mallina Ravi, Abdelkafy Ashraf, Adhikari Ajeya
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Accurate component alignment in total knee replacement (TKR) is one of the important factors in determining long-term survivorship. This has been achieved by conventional jigs, computer-assisted technology (CAS) and more recently patient-specific instrumentation (PSI). The purpose of the current study was to investigate the in vivo accuracy of Trumatch™ PSI using validated pin-less computer navigation system.
METHOD: Twenty consecutive selected patients that fulfilled our inclusion/exclusion criteria underwent TKR using PSI. Coronal alignment, posterior slope, resection thickness and femoral sagittal alignment were recorded using pin-less navigation. The position of the actual cutting block was appropriately adjusted prior to proceeding to definitive resections.
RESULTS: The coronal alignment using PSI without the assistance of navigation would have resulted in 14 (70 %) within ±3°, 11 (55 %) within ±2° and 6 (30 %) outside acceptable alignment. Thirty-five percentage of proposed femur sagittal alignment and 55 % of posterior tibial slope were achieved within ±3°. Components size was accurately predicted in 95 % of femurs and 90 % of tibia.
CONCLUSION: The purported advantages in restoring alignments using Trumatch™ PSI alone over standard equipment are debatable. However, it predicts sizing well, and femoral coronal alignment is reasonable. Combining Trumatch™ PSI with CAS will allow in vivo verification and necessary corrections.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
METHOD: Twenty consecutive selected patients that fulfilled our inclusion/exclusion criteria underwent TKR using PSI. Coronal alignment, posterior slope, resection thickness and femoral sagittal alignment were recorded using pin-less navigation. The position of the actual cutting block was appropriately adjusted prior to proceeding to definitive resections.
RESULTS: The coronal alignment using PSI without the assistance of navigation would have resulted in 14 (70 %) within ±3°, 11 (55 %) within ±2° and 6 (30 %) outside acceptable alignment. Thirty-five percentage of proposed femur sagittal alignment and 55 % of posterior tibial slope were achieved within ±3°. Components size was accurately predicted in 95 % of femurs and 90 % of tibia.
CONCLUSION: The purported advantages in restoring alignments using Trumatch™ PSI alone over standard equipment are debatable. However, it predicts sizing well, and femoral coronal alignment is reasonable. Combining Trumatch™ PSI with CAS will allow in vivo verification and necessary corrections.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.