Assor M, Aubaniac J-M
Centre Orthos, 427, rue Paradis, 13008 Marseille.
Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2006 Sep;92(5):473-84. doi: 10.1016/s0035-1040(06)75834-2.
Rotatory malposition of the femoral component of a unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a key element of mechanical failure despite proper alignment and position of the tibial implant. The purpose of this study was to describe a method for measuring femoral implant rotation on the anteroposterior x-ray using an original geometric model.
276 medial UKA (227 non-cemented Uni Goeland, Depuy; Uni, AMP) and 49 cemented (Miller-Galante, Zimmer) were reviewed and analyzed at a mean 11 years (range 7 - 15) using the Knee Society Score. Mean objective and functional scores were 43 and 47 points preoperatively. Postoperative alignment and position of the femorotibial contact point were determined. The frontal and sagittal position of the tibial plateau was noted by the angle formed with the mechanical axis. Angles alpha and B of the femoral implant formed between the mechanical axis and the greater condylar axis and the inferior condylar line passing through the apex of the condylar convexity respectively were measured on the AP view. Frontal rotation (angle B) of the femoral implant reflected the orientation of the distal condylar cut. The frontal measurement (angle alpha) was validated using simple geometric formulas: knowing angles alpha and B and the size of the implant and the displacement of the point of contact was measured together with the true rotation of the femoral implant or anteroposterior divergence, function of the difference alpha-B which is its frontal projection and reflects the orientation of the posterior condylar cut.
Mean alignment was 3 degrees varus. At last follow-up, outcome was satisfactory in 81.2% of the knees (224 UKA). Mean objective and functional scores were 90 and 87 points. Angles alpha and B were parallel and orthogonal to the mechanical axis or off by less than 4 degrees external rotation (+6 degrees to -4 degrees). The mean difference alpha-B (frontal projection of the femoral implant transverse rotation) was 1 degrees. The point of contact was 4 mm or less from the middle of the tibia. Failures were observed in 18.8% of knees (52 UKA): 4 for diverse reasons and 48 for mechanical failure, including 3 with polyethylene wear without loosening (two by eccentric point of contact and neutral position and one by inverted misalignments). 45 UKA (16.3%) presented loosening of the tibial plateau alone with rotatory femoral malposition: mean a angle off 13% from the mechanical axis (+16 degrees to -9 degrees ), mean B angle off 8 degrees (+12 degrees to -8 degrees), mean alpha-B difference 5 degrees , femoral implant in square position on polyethylene with a peripheral point of contact > or 5 mm from the middle of the tibial plateau. The tibial implant exhibited mean varus of 1.5 degrees.
The main cause of failure was rotatory malposition of the condylar implant often associating frontal with transversal rotation. This increased mediolateral translation of the point of contact during knee motion causing abrasion and excessive pressure on the medial portion of the plateau. Frontal malrotation externalizes the posterior cut on the condyle tilted by the varus position, without correcting the varus of the mechanical axis in flexion. To avoid such prosthetic malrotations, three corrections must be made before making the bone cuts: cancel the external rotation of the condyles in flexion by positioning the distal cut guide in extension; re-establish the mechanical axis by reducing the internal tilt of the condyles resulting from the varus position both in extension (distal cut) and flexion (posterior cut). Improved instrumentations and reproducible techniques are needed to re-establish the 3D anatomic orientation of the femoral component, a key element for longer life of unicompartmental prostheses. This method for measuring the rotation of the femoral implant and the displacement of the point of contact using a geometric model applied to the AP view is useful for better understanding UKA failures.
单髁膝关节置换术(UKA)中股骨部件的旋转错位是导致机械性失败的关键因素,尽管胫骨植入物的对线和位置正确。本研究的目的是描述一种使用原始几何模型在前后位X射线上测量股骨植入物旋转的方法。
回顾并分析了22276例内侧UKA(227例非骨水泥型Uni Goeland,Depuy;Uni,AMP)和49例骨水泥型(Miller-Galante,Zimmer),平均随访11年(范围7 - 15年),采用膝关节协会评分。术前平均客观评分和功能评分为43分和47分。确定术后股骨胫骨接触点的对线和位置。通过与机械轴形成的角度记录胫骨平台的前后位和矢状位。在前后位视图上测量股骨植入物的α角和β角,α角是机械轴与大髁轴之间形成的角度,β角是通过髁突凸顶点的下髁线与机械轴之间形成的角度。股骨植入物的前后旋转(β角)反映了远端髁截骨的方向。通过简单的几何公式验证前后测量值(α角):已知α角和β角以及植入物的尺寸,并测量接触点的位移以及股骨植入物的真实旋转或前后发散,其为α - β差值的函数,α - β差值是其前后投影,反映了后髁截骨的方向。
平均对线为内翻3度。在最后一次随访时,81.2%的膝关节(224例UKA)结果满意。平均客观评分和功能评分为90分和87分。α角和β角与机械轴平行且正交,或外旋偏差小于4度(+6度至 - 4度)。α - β的平均差值(股骨植入物横向旋转的前后投影)为1度。接触点距离胫骨中部4mm或更小。在18.8%的膝关节(52例UKA)中观察到失败情况:4例因各种原因,48例因机械性失败,包括3例聚乙烯磨损但未松动(2例因接触点偏心和中立位置,1例因反向对线不良)。45例UKA(16.3%)仅出现胫骨平台松动伴股骨旋转错位:α角平均偏离机械轴13%(+16度至 - 9度),β角平均偏离8度(+12度至 - 8度),α - β平均差值5度,股骨植入物在聚乙烯上处于方形位置,周边接触点距离胫骨平台中部大于或等于5mm。胫骨植入物平均内翻1.5度。
失败的主要原因是髁植入物的旋转错位,通常伴有前后旋转和横向旋转。这增加了膝关节运动期间接触点的内外侧平移,导致磨损和平台内侧部分的压力过大。前后旋转不良使内翻位置倾斜的髁上的后截骨向外移位,而在屈曲时未纠正机械轴的内翻。为避免这种假体旋转不良,在进行骨截骨前必须进行三项校正:通过在伸直位定位远端截骨导向器来消除屈曲时髁的外旋;通过减少伸直位(远端截骨)和屈曲位(后截骨)内翻位置导致的髁的内倾来重新建立机械轴。需要改进器械和可重复的技术来重新建立股骨部件的三维解剖方向,这是单髁假体使用寿命延长的关键因素。这种使用应用于前后位视图的几何模型测量股骨植入物旋转和接触点位移的方法有助于更好地理解UKA失败情况。