Renieris Georgios, Georgokostas Athanasios, Georgaki Eleni, Renieri Natalia
Orthopedic Department, Athens Medical Group, Psychiko Clinic, Andersen 1, Athens 11525, Greece - Athens Orthopedic and Trauma Clinic, Athens 11525, Greece.
Oncology Unit, General Hospital of Athens Hippocrateion, Athens 11527, Greece.
SICOT J. 2025;11:44. doi: 10.1051/sicotj/2025044. Epub 2025 Aug 4.
To evaluate whether the use of patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) or conventional instrumentation (CI) is associated with superior implant positioning and knee alignment in total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
Clinical data, pre- and post-operative knee X-rays of 95 patients, who underwent TKA with use of either patient-specific instrumentation (group PSI) or conventional intra-/extramedullary cutting guides (group CI) were retrospectively collected. Preoperative measurements of knee alignment were done by assessing the femorotibial axis, the lateral femoral distal angle, and the medial tibial proximal angle. Postoperative measurements of the mechanical TKA alignment were performed by assessing the relative position of components to the femur and tibia and the femorotibial axis angle. Only when all three parameters were within generally accepted limits was the postoperative radiological outcome considered optimal.
Preoperative measurements and demographics were similar among the two groups. No statistically significant differences were found between postoperative radiographic findings in patients operated on with PSI or CI. A restoration of the femorotibial axis was achieved in 87.8% and 87.0% of patients treated with PSI and CI, respectively (p = 0.583). Coronal alignment of the femoral component was within acceptable limits in 97.6% and 94.4% (p = 0.631) of patients of the PSI and CI groups, respectively. The respective percentages for the tibial component were 85.3% and 83.3% (p = 0.510) of patients. An accurate coronal plane radiological outcome was achieved in 82.9% and 77.8% of patients treated with PSI and CI, respectively (p = 0.611) Conclusions: The use of PSI does not increase the accuracy of component positioning and leg axis restoration compared to CI in TKA in patients with mild deformity.
评估在全膝关节置换术(TKA)中使用定制器械(PSI)或传统器械(CI)是否与更好的植入物定位和膝关节对线相关。
回顾性收集了95例行TKA的患者的临床资料、术前和术后膝关节X线片,这些患者分别使用了定制器械(PSI组)或传统的髓内/髓外截骨导向器(CI组)。术前通过评估股胫轴线、股骨远端外侧角和胫骨近端内侧角来测量膝关节对线。术后通过评估假体组件相对于股骨和胫骨的相对位置以及股胫轴线角度来测量TKA的机械对线。只有当所有三个参数都在普遍接受的范围内时,术后放射学结果才被认为是最佳的。
两组患者术前测量和人口统计学特征相似。在接受PSI或CI手术的患者中,术后影像学结果之间未发现统计学上的显著差异。接受PSI和CI治疗的患者中,分别有87.8%和87.0%实现了股胫轴线的恢复(p = 0.583)。PSI组和CI组患者中,股骨组件的冠状面排列分别在97.6%和94.4%(p = 0.631)的患者中处于可接受范围内。胫骨组件的相应百分比分别为85.3%和83.3%(p = 0.510)的患者。接受PSI和CI治疗的患者中,分别有82.9%和77.8%获得了准确的冠状面放射学结果(p = 0.611)。结论:在轻度畸形患者的TKA中,与CI相比,使用PSI不会提高组件定位和下肢轴线恢复的准确性。