Image-guided techniques improve accuracy of mosaic arthroplasty

PurposeMosaic arthroplasty is a surgical technique in which a set of cylindrical osteochondral grafts is transplanted from non-load-bearing areas of the joint to repair damaged articular cartilage. Incongruity between the graft surface and the adjacent cartilage at the repair site results in inferior clinical outcomes. This paper compares technical outcome using three mosaic arthroplasty techniques (conventional, optoelectronic, and patient-specific template) on femur models.MethodsThree distinct sets of femur models with defects were created. Preoperatively, the harvest and delivery sites were planned using custom software. Five orthopedic surgeons were recruited; each surgeon performed each of the three surgical techniques on each of the three bone models with defect. During the optoelectronic trials, the instrument position and orientation were tracked and superimposed onto the surgical plan. For the patient-specific template trials, plastic templates were manufactured to fit over the defects with cylindrical holes to guide the surgical tools according to the plan. Postoperatively, the femur models were computer tomography and laser scanned. Several measures were made to compare surgical techniques: operative time; surface congruency; defect coverage; graft surface area that is proud or recessed; air volume below the grafts; and distance and angle of the grafts from the surgical plan.ResultsThe patient-specific template and optoelectronic techniques resulted in improved surface congruency, defect surface coverage, and below-graft air gap volume in comparison with the conventional technique. However, the conventional technique had a shorter operative time.ConclusionsImage-guided techniques can improve the accuracy of mosaic arthroplasty, which could result in better clinical outcomes.

[1]  A. J. Stewart,et al.  Image-Guided Techniques Improve the Short-Term Outcome of Autologous Osteochondral Cartilage Repair Surgeries , 2013, Cartilage.

[2]  C. Scheffer,et al.  Anatomical study of the radius and center of curvature of the distal femoral condyle. , 2010, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[3]  Daniel Kendoff,et al.  Arthroscopic mosaicplasty for osteochondral lesions of the knee: computer-assisted navigation versus freehand technique. , 2012, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[4]  John M. Clark,et al.  Effects of Small Incongruities in a Sheep Model of Osteochondral Autografting , 2004, The American journal of sports medicine.

[5]  A. James Stewart,et al.  Prediction of the Repair Surface over Cartilage Defects: A Comparison of Three Methods in a Sheep Model , 2009, MICCAI.

[6]  R. Jakob,et al.  Autologous Osteochondral Grafting in the Knee: Indication, Results, and Reflections , 2002, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[7]  W Herzog,et al.  Articular cartilage biomechanics: theoretical models, material properties, and biosynthetic response. , 1999, Critical reviews in biomedical engineering.

[8]  Kouki Nagamune,et al.  A development of navigation system for mosaic plasty using electromagnetic sensor , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE 2011).

[9]  A. James Stewart,et al.  Automated Planning of Computer Assisted Mosaic Arthroplasty , 2011, MICCAI.

[10]  A. Burkart,et al.  Osteochondral autologous transplantation in various joints , 2016, Der Orthopäde.

[11]  Russell H. Taylor,et al.  Smart Alignment Tool for Knee MosaicPlasty Surgery , 2001, MICCAI.

[12]  A. James Stewart,et al.  Computer-assisted mosaic arthroplasty using patient-specific instrument guides , 2012, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[13]  Sotirios A. Tsaftaris,et al.  Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention , 2017 .

[14]  A. Burkart,et al.  [Autologous osteochondral transplantation on various joints]. , 1999, Der Orthopade.

[15]  D. Koulalis,et al.  Comparative Study of Navigated versus Freehand Osteochondral Graft Transplantation of the Knee , 2009, The American journal of sports medicine.

[16]  Kouki Nagamune,et al.  A development of navigation system with image segmentation in mosaicplasty of the knee , 2012, 2012 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems.

[17]  M. Hochberg,et al.  Joint Injury in Young Adults and Risk for Subsequent Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis , 2000, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[18]  A. Miniaci,et al.  An investigation of 2 techniques for optimizing joint surface congruency using multiple cylindrical osteochondral autografts. , 2001, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[19]  J. Koh,et al.  The Effect of Graft Height Mismatch on Contact Pressure following Osteochondral Grafting , 2004, The American journal of sports medicine.

[20]  A. Miniaci,et al.  Intra-articular hyaluronan following autogenous osteochondral grafting of the knee. , 2005, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.