Huber Kim, Christen Bernhard, Calliess Sarah, Calliess Tilman
articon Spezialpraxis für Gelenkchirurgie, 3013 Berne, Switzerland.
Campusradiologie Bern, Engeried-Spital, 3012 Berne, Switzerland.
J Pers Med. 2021 Jul 15;11(7):662. doi: 10.3390/jpm11070662.
Image-based robotic assistance appears to be a promising tool for individualizing alignment in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The patient-specific model of the knee enables a preoperative 3D planning of component position. Adjustments to the individual soft-tissue situation can be done intraoperatively. Based on this, we have established a standardized workflow to implement the idea of kinematic alignment (KA) for robotic-assisted TKA. In addition, we have defined limits for its use. If these limits are reached, we switch to a restricted KA (rKA). The aim of the study was to evaluate (1) in what percentage of patients a true KA or an rKA is applicable, (2) whether there were differences regarding knee phenotypes, and (3) what the differences of philosophies in terms of component position, joint stability, and early patient outcome were.
The study included a retrospective analysis of 111 robotic-assisted primary TKAs. Based on preoperative long leg standing radiographs, the patients were categorized into a varus, valgus, or neutral subgroup. Initially, all patients were planned for KA TKA. When the defined safe zone had been exceeded, adjustments to an rKA were made. Intraoperatively, the alignment of the components and joint gaps were recorded by robotic software.
With our indication for TKA and the defined boundaries, "only" 44% of the patients were suitable for a true KA with no adjustments or soft tissue releases. In the varus group, it was about 70%, whereas it was 0% in the valgus group and 25% in the neutral alignment group. Thus, significant differences with regard to knee morphotypes were evident. In the KA group, a more physiological knee balance reconstructing the trapezoidal flexion gap (+2 mm on average laterally) was seen as well as a closer reconstruction of the surface anatomy and joint line in all dimensions compared to rKA. This resulted in a higher improvement in the collected outcome scores in favor of KA in the very early postoperative phase.
基于图像的机器人辅助似乎是全膝关节置换术(TKA)中实现个性化对线的一种有前景的工具。膝关节的患者特异性模型能够对假体位置进行术前三维规划。术中可针对个体软组织情况进行调整。基于此,我们建立了一种标准化工作流程,以实现机器人辅助TKA的运动学对线(KA)理念。此外,我们还定义了其使用限制。如果达到这些限制,我们就切换到受限KA(rKA)。本研究的目的是评估:(1)真正的KA或rKA适用于患者的百分比;(2)膝关节表型方面是否存在差异;(3)在假体位置、关节稳定性和患者早期预后方面,两种理念的差异是什么。
本研究对111例机器人辅助初次TKA进行了回顾性分析。根据术前长腿站立位X线片,将患者分为内翻、外翻或中立亚组。最初,所有患者均计划行KA TKA。当超出定义的安全区时,调整为rKA。术中,通过机器人软件记录假体的对线和关节间隙。
根据我们对TKA的适应证和定义的边界,“仅”44%的患者适合真正的KA,无需调整或软组织松解。在内翻组中,这一比例约为70%,而外翻组为0%,中立对线组为25%。因此,膝关节形态类型存在显著差异。与rKA相比,KA组重建了更符合生理的膝关节平衡,梯形屈曲间隙平均外侧增加2mm,并且在所有维度上更接近表面解剖结构和关节线的重建。这导致在术后极早期收集的结果评分中,KA组的改善更高。