Sydney Orthopaedic Research Institute, 445 Victoria Ave, Chatswood, 2067, Australia.
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2020 Jun;140(6):801-806. doi: 10.1007/s00402-020-03403-9. Epub 2020 Mar 7.
The most commonly used tool for implant positioning are conventional instruments (CI) followed by computer-assisted surgery (CAS). A number of studies have investigated the cutting error of the tibial component when CAS is used, but most of them were focused on the cutting angles. The accuracy of CAS to determine the depth of the cut has not received much attention, even though implications are similar or worse, than with an angle mismatch.
This was an ethics board approved, prospective study of 23 consecutive varus TKAs by a single surgeon. Implant positioning was performed using CAS; however, the depth of the tibial cut was determined with both CAS and CI. Targeted alignment was the mechanical axis and 3° of posterior slope. The planned and the achieved cut, as determined by CAS needed to match. The achieved cut was then measured using a caliper and compared to the depth of the cut as per CAS. Medial and lateral cuts were analyzed separately. Analysis of variance and Bland-Altman plots were used for the comparison.
Mean medial navigated cut was 6.3 (± 2.2) mm, mean measured medial cut was 6.6 (± 2.3) mm. Mean lateral navigated cut was 8.9 (± 1.8) mm, mean measured lateral cut was 8.8 (± 1.5) mm. There was a statistical significance for both the medial (p < 0.001) and the lateral (p = 0.004) navigated and measured cuts.
The results of this study suggest that the tibial cut depth, measured by the navigation, does not match the actual bony cuts performed, even if a perfect cut was achieved in both sagittal and coronal plane. Surgeons should be aware of the measurement error in the navigation system and potentially add an additional step for verifying the achieved depth of the cut.
在植入物定位中,最常用的工具是传统器械(CI)和计算机辅助手术(CAS)。有许多研究调查了使用 CAS 时胫骨部件的切割误差,但大多数研究都集中在切割角度上。CAS 确定切割深度的准确性尚未受到太多关注,尽管其影响与角度不匹配相似或更糟。
这是一项由一位外科医生进行的连续 23 例内翻 TKAs 的单中心前瞻性研究,使用 CAS 进行植入物定位;然而,胫骨切割的深度是使用 CAS 和 CI 共同确定的。目标对准是机械轴和 3°后倾。计划的和 CAS 确定的实际切割必须匹配。然后使用卡尺测量实际切割,并与 CAS 确定的切割深度进行比较。分别分析内侧和外侧切割。使用方差分析和 Bland-Altman 图进行比较。
内侧导航切割的平均深度为 6.3(±2.2)mm,内侧实际切割的平均深度为 6.6(±2.3)mm。外侧导航切割的平均深度为 8.9(±1.8)mm,外侧实际切割的平均深度为 8.8(±1.5)mm。内侧(p<0.001)和外侧(p=0.004)导航和实际切割均存在统计学意义。
这项研究的结果表明,即使在矢状面和冠状面都实现了完美切割,导航测量的胫骨切割深度与实际骨切割不匹配。外科医生应该意识到导航系统的测量误差,并可能增加一个额外的步骤来验证实际切割深度。