Siston Robert A, Goodman Stuart B, Patel Jay J, Delp Scott L, Giori Nicholas J
Mechanical Engineering Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 Nov;452:65-9. doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000229335.36900.a0.
Although various techniques are advocated to establish tibial rotational alignment during total knee arthroplasty, it is unknown which is most repeatable. We evaluated the precision and accuracy of five tibial rotational alignment techniques to determine whether computer-assisted navigation systems can reduce variability of tibial component rotational alignment when compared to traditional instrumentation. Eleven orthopaedic surgeons used four computer-assisted techniques that required identification of anatomical landmarks and one that used traditional extramedullary instrumentation to establish tibial rotational alignment axes on 10 cadaver legs. Two computer-assisted techniques (axes between the most medial and lateral border of the tibial plateau, and between the posterior cruciate ligament [PCL] and the anterior tibial crest) and the traditional technique were least variable, with standard deviations of 9.9 degrees, 10.8 degrees, and 12.1 degrees, respectively. Computer-assisted techniques referencing the tibial tubercle (axes between the PCL and the medial border or medial 1/3 of the tubercle) were most variable, with standard deviations of 27.4 degrees and 28.1 degrees. The axis between the medial border of the tibial tubercle and the PCL was internally rotated compared to the other techniques. None of the techniques consistently established tibial rotational alignment, and navigation systems that establish rotational alignment by identifying anatomic landmarks were not more reliable than traditional instrumentation.
尽管在全膝关节置换术中提倡采用多种技术来确定胫骨旋转对线,但哪种技术最具可重复性尚不清楚。我们评估了五种胫骨旋转对线技术的精度和准确性,以确定与传统器械相比,计算机辅助导航系统是否能降低胫骨假体旋转对线的变异性。11名骨科医生使用了四种需要识别解剖标志的计算机辅助技术和一种使用传统髓外器械的技术,在10条尸体腿上确定胫骨旋转对线轴。两种计算机辅助技术(胫骨平台最内侧和最外侧边界之间的轴线,以及后交叉韧带[PCL]和胫骨前嵴之间的轴线)和传统技术的变异性最小,标准差分别为9.9度、10.8度和12.1度。以胫骨结节为参考的计算机辅助技术(PCL与结节内侧边界或内侧1/3之间的轴线)变异性最大,标准差为27.4度和28.1度。与其他技术相比,胫骨结节内侧边界与PCL之间的轴线向内旋转。没有一种技术能始终如一地确定胫骨旋转对线,通过识别解剖标志来确定旋转对线的导航系统并不比传统器械更可靠。