HALİL CAN GEMALMAZ, Kerim SARIYILMAZ, Okan OZKUNT, Mustafa SUNGUR, İbrahim KAYA, FATİH DİKİCİ

Postoperative mechanical alignment analysis of total knee replacement patients operated with 3D printed patient specific instruments: A Prospective Cohort Study

Objective: Total knee replacement (TKR) is a surgical treatment for final stage gonarthrosis. The lifespan of the prosthetic implants used in TKR surgery is a major interest for the orthopaedic research community.Previously, proper implant alignment of the implants has been advocated for longevity of the TKR surgery. Recently, patient-specific (PSI) instruments have been proposed to improve the mechanical alignment of the TKR by permitting better implant positioning over conventional TKR surgery. The aim of this study is to compare the mechanical alignment results of patients operated with PSIs and conventional instruments. Methods: Two groups of 20 patients chosen in a quasi-random manner have been compared in this study. In the first group femoral distal and tibial osteotomies were made by a PSI which was produced by the patients' computed tomography scans. All osteotomies in the control group were made with the TKR set's routine instruments by conventional means. Patients' preoperative and postoperative mechanical femorotibal angles (mFTA), femoral coronal angles (FCA), tibial coronal angles (TCA) were measured and the number of outliers which showed more than 3 of malalignment were counted in both groups for comparison. Results: The average postoperative mFTA was found to be 2.09 for the PSI group and in was found to be 2.84 for the control which was not statistically significant. The comparison of postoperative FCA and TCA also did not show significant difference between the groups. The number of outliers showing more than 3 of malalignment per group were found to be 1 out of 20 (5%) for the PSI group and 7 out of 20 (35%) for the control which was statistically significant. Conclusion: In this study patient-specific instrumentation provided significantly better mechanical alignment compared to conventional TKR for the frequency of outlier cases with malalignment beyond 3. PSI proved no significant difference when the groups were compared for mFTA, FCA and TCA. Our findings support that PSI may improve TKR alignment by improving the ratio of the outlier patients with marked malalignment.

___

1. Iorio R, Robb WJ, Healy WL, et al. Orthopaedic surgeon workforce and volume assessment for total hip and knee replacement in the United States: preparing for an epidemic. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Jul;90(7):1598e1605.

2. Becker R, Hirschmann MT, Karlsson J. Does implant design and surgical technique improve the clinical outcome in total knee arthroplasty? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014 Aug;22(8):1716e1718.

3. Ritter MA, Davis KE, Meding JB, Pierson JL, Berend ME, Malinzak RA. The effect of alignment and BMI on failure of total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Sep 7;93(17):1588e1596.

4. Lombardi Jr AV, Berend KR, Ng VY. Neutral mechanical alignment: a requirement for successful TKA: affirms. Orthopedics. 2011 Sep 9;34(9):e504ee506.

5. Parratte S, Pagnano MW, Trousdale RT, Berry DJ. Effect of postoperative mechanical axis alignment on the fifteen-year survival of modern, cemented total knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010 Sep 15;92(12):2143e2149.

6. Hetaimish BM, Khan MM, Simunovic N, Al-Harbi HH, Bhandari M, Zalzal PK. Meta-analysis of navigation vs conventional total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012 Jun;27(6):1177e1182.

7. Mason JB, Fehring TK, Estok R, Banel D, Fahrbach K. Meta-analysis of alignment outcomes in computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty surgery. J Arthroplasty. 2007 Dec;22(8):1097e1106.

8. Cheng T, Zhao S, Peng X, Zhang X. Does computer-assisted surgery improve postoperative leg alignment and implant positioning following total knee arthroplasty? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012 Jul;20(7):1307e1322.

9. Moubarak H, Brilhault J. Contribution of patient-specific cutting guides to lower limb alignment for total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014 Jun;100(4 Suppl):S239eS242.

10. Ivie CB, Probst PJ, Bal AK, Stannard JT, Crist BD, Sonny Bal B. Improved radiographic outcomes with patient-specific total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014 Nov;29(11):2100e2103.

11. Franceschi JP, Sbihi A. 3D templating and patient-specific cutting guides (KneePlan®) in total knee arthroplasty: postoperative CT-based assessment of implant positioning. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014 Oct;100(6 Suppl):S281eS286.

12. Qiu B, Liu F, Tang B, et al. Clinical study of 3D imaging and 3D printing technique for patient-specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. 2017 Oct;30(8):822e828.

13. Chareancholvanich K, Narkbunnam R, Pornrattanamaneewong C. A prospective randomised controlled study of patient-specific cutting guides compared with conventional instrumentation in total knee replacement. Bone Joint J. 2013 Mar;95-B(3):354e359.

14. Barrack RL, Ruh EL, Williams BM, Ford AD, Foreman K, Nunley RM. Patient specific cutting blocks are currently of No proven value. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012 Nov;94(11 Suppl A):95e99.

15. Daniilidis K, Tibesku CO. Frontal plane alignment after total knee arthroplasty using patient-specific instruments. Int Orthop. 2013 Jan;37(1):45e50.

16. Russell R, Brown T, Huo M, Jones R. Patient-specific instrumentation does not improve alignment in total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. 2014 Dec;27(6):501e504.

17. Mannan A, Smith TO, Sagar C, London NJ, Molitor PJ. No demonstrable benefit for coronal alignment outcomes in PSI knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2015 Jun;101(4):461e468.

18. Dutton AQ, Yeo SJ, Yang KY, Lo NN, Chia KU, Chong HC. Computer-assisted minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty compared with standard total knee arthroplasty. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Jan;90(1):2e9.

19. Ng VY, DeClaire JH, Berend KR, Gulick BC, Lombardi Jr AV. Improved accuracy of alignment with patient-specific positioning guides compared with manual instrumentation in TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Jan;470(1):99e107.

20. An VV, Sivakumar BS, Phan K, Levy YD, Bruce WJ. Accuracy of MRI-based vs. CTbased patient-specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: a metaanalysis. J Orthop Sci. 2017 Jan;22(1):116e120.

21. Frye BM, Najim AA, Adams JB, Berend KR, Lombardi Jr AV. MRI is more accurate than CT for patient-specific total knee arthroplasty. Knee. 2015 Dec;22(6): 609e612.

22. Asada S, Mori S, Matsushita T, Nakagawa K, Tsukamoto I, Akagi M. Comparison of MRI- and CT-based patient-specific guides for total knee arthroplasty. Knee. 2014 Dec;21(6):1238e1243.

23. Schotanus MG, Sollie R, van Haaren EH, Hendrickx RP, Jansen EJ, Kort NP. A radiological analysis of the difference between MRI- and CT-based patientspecific matched guides for total knee arthroplasty from the same manufacturer: a randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint J. 2016 Jun;98-B(6):786e792.

24. Wong AKO, Manske SL. A comparison of peripheral imaging technologies for bone and muscle quantification: a review of segmentation techniques. J Clin Densitom J Clin Densitom. 2018 Apr 17:30033e30037 [Epub ahead of print].

25. De Gori M, Adamczewski B, Jenny JY. Value of the cumulative sum test for the assessment of a learning curve: application to the introduction of patientspecific instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty in an. Acad Dep Knee. 2017 Jun;24(3):615e621.

26. Chinnappa J, Chen DB, Harris IA, MacDessi SJ. Total knee arthroplasty using patient-specific guides: is there a learning curve? Knee. 2015 Dec;22(6): 613e617.

27. Lachiewicz PF, Henderson RA. Patient-specific instruments for total knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013 Sep;21(9):513e518.