In-vivo alignment comparing patient specific instrumentation with both conventional and computer assisted surgery (CAS) instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty.

Patient specific instrumentation (PSI) was developed to increase total knee arthroplasty (TKA) accuracy and efficiency. The study purpose was to compare immediate post-operative mechanical alignment, achieved using PSI, with conventional and computer assisted surgery (CAS) instruments in high volume TKA practices. This prospective, multicenter, non-randomized study accrued 66 TKA patients using PSI. A computed tomography (CT) based algorithm was used to develop the surgical plan. Sixty-two percent were females, 99% were diagnosed with osteoarthritis, average age at surgery was 66 years, and 33 was the average body mass index. A historical control group was utilized that underwent TKA using conventional instruments (n=86) or CAS (n=81), by the same set of surgeons. Postoperative mechanical alignment was comparable across the groups. Operative time mean and variance were significant.

[1]  Anthony J. Petrella,et al.  Optimizing Femoral Component Rotation in Total Knee Arthroplasty , 2001, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[2]  L. Molfetta,et al.  Computer navigation versus conventional implantation for varus knee total arthroplasty: a case-control study at 5 years follow-up. , 2008, The Knee.

[3]  William J Hozack,et al.  Custom-fit total knee arthroplasty (OtisKnee) results in malalignment. , 2008, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[4]  Daniel J Berry,et al.  Orthopaedic surgeon workforce and volume assessment for total hip and knee replacement in the United States: preparing for an epidemic. , 2008, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[5]  W. Breidahl,et al.  Computer-assisted knee arthroplasty versus a conventional jig-based technique. A randomised, prospective trial. , 2004, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[6]  Yogeesh D. Kamat,et al.  Does computer navigation in total knee arthroplasty improve patient outcome at midterm follow-up? , 2009, International Orthopaedics.

[7]  A. Lombardi,et al.  Analysis of procedure-related costs and proposed benefits of using patient-specific approach in total knee arthroplasty. , 2011, Journal of surgical orthopaedic advances.

[8]  Georg Matziolis,et al.  A prospective, randomized study of computer-assisted and conventional total knee arthroplasty. Three-dimensional evaluation of implant alignment and rotation. , 2007, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[9]  Alexander Giurea,et al.  Learning curve in navigated total knee replacement. A multi-centre study comparing experienced and beginner centres. , 2008, The Knee.

[10]  D. Hernández-Vaquero,et al.  Navigation in total knee arthroplasty. A multicenter study , 2006, International Orthopaedics.

[11]  M. Ritter,et al.  Malalignment: forewarned is forearmed. , 2009, Orthopedics.

[12]  D. Fisher,et al.  Comparison of radiographic alignment of imageless computer-assisted surgery vs conventional instrumentation in primary total knee arthroplasty. , 2011, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[13]  T. Fehring,et al.  Meta-analysis of alignment outcomes in computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty surgery. , 2007, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[14]  Joanne B. Adams,et al.  Patient-specific approach in total knee arthroplasty. , 2008, Orthopedics.

[15]  Steffen Kohler,et al.  Consistency of implantation of a total knee arthroplasty with a non-image-based navigation system: a case-control study of 235 cases compared with 235 conventionally implanted prostheses. , 2005, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[16]  P. Sharkey,et al.  Why Are Total Knee Arthroplasties Failing Today? , 2002 .

[17]  D. Zurakowski,et al.  Alignment in total knee arthroplasty. A comparison of computer-assisted surgery with the conventional technique. , 2004, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.