[Imaging and preoperative planning for osteotomies around the knee]

An artificial intelligence based on a convolutional neural network allows a precise analysis of the alignment of the lower limb

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to develop a numeric tool to automate the analysis of deformity from lower limb telemetry and assess its accuracy. Our hypothesis was that artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm would be able to determine mechanical and anatomical angles to within 1°.

METHODS

After institutional review board approval, 1175 anonymized patient telemetries were extracted from a database of more than ten thousand telemetries. From this selection, 31 packs of telemetries were composed and sent to 11 orthopaedic surgeons for analysis. Each surgeon had to identify on the telemetries fourteen landmarks allowing determination of the following four angles: hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA), medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA), lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA), and joint line convergence angle (JLCA). An algorithm based on a machine learning process was trained on our database to automatically determine angles. The reliability of the algorithm was evaluated by calculating the difference of determination precision between the surgeons and the algorithm.

RESULTS

The analysis time for obtaining 28 points and 8 angles per image was 48 ± 12 s for the algorithm. The average difference between the angles measured by the surgeons and the algorithm was around 1.9° for all the angles of interest: 1.3° for HKA, 1.6° for MPTA, 2.1° for LDFA, and 2.4° for JLCA. Intraclass correlation was greater than 95% for all angles.

CONCLUSION

The algorithm showed high accuracy for automated angle measurement, allowing the estimation of limb frontal alignment to the nearest degree.

Is Patient-Specific Instrumentation Accurate and Necessary for Open-Wedge High Tibial Osteotomy? A Meta-Analysis

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to identify if patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) could increase the accuracy of the correction in high tibial osteotomy (HTO) and to explore the assessment indices and the necessity of using a PSI in HTO. A systematic search was carried out using online databases. A total of 466 patients were included in 11 papers that matched the inclusion criteria. To evaluate the accuracy of PSI-assisted HTO, the weight bearing line ratio (WBL%), hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA), mechanical medial proximal tibial angle (mMPTA), and posterior tibial slope angle (PTSA) were measured preoperatively and postoperatively and compared to the designed target values. Statistical analysis was performed after strict data extraction with Review Manager (version 5.4). Significant differences were detected in WBL% (MD = -36.41; 95% CI: -42.30 to -30.53; p < 0.00001), HKA (MD = -9.95; 95% CI: -11.65 to -8.25; p < 0.00001), and mMPTA (MD = -8.40; 95% CI:-10.27 to -6.53; p < 0.00001) but not in PTSA (MD = 0.34; 95% CI: -0.59 to 1.27; p = 0.47) between preoperative and postoperative measurements. There was no significant difference between the designed target values and the postoperative correction values of HKA (MD = 0.14; 95% CI: -0.19 to 0.47; p = 0.41) or mMPTA (MD = 0.11; 95% CI -0.34 to 0.55; p = 0.64). The data show that 3D-based planning of PSI for HTO is both accurate and safe. WBL%, HKA, and mMPTA were the optimal evaluation indicators of coronal plane correction. Sagittal correction is best evaluated by the PTSA. The present study reports that PSI is accurate but not necessary in typical HTO.

No benefits of knee osteotomy patient's specific instrumentation in experienced surgeon hands

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) with the conventional free hand (FH) technique in performing coronal plane corrective knee osteotomies in terms of limb alignment and functional scores. The hypothesis is that conventional FH technique in experienced hands with proper pre-operative planning is as precise as PSI.

METHODS

Patients who underwent coronal plane corrective knee osteotomies with either PSI or FH technique between 2017 and 2019 by the same senior surgeon and have a minimum of 2 years follow-up period were included in this study. A total of 91 knees (84 patients) with mean age of 42.9 ± 12.5 years who had a pre- and post-operative complete weight-bearing radiographic work-up (50 of them were performed with the FH technique and 41 by means of PSI) were included for comparison. The data were retrospectively reviewed both radiologically and clinically using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) sub-scores. All cases in both groups were evaluated for the following measurements: hip-knee-ankle (HKA), medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA), mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA), and joint line convergence angle (JLCA) both preoperatively and postoperatively. In addition, FH and PSI osteotomy cases were also compared for their precision in achieving the target correction that was planned preoperatively. All cases were also evaluated clinically preoperatively and at 2-year follow-up using KOOS sub-scores and the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

The mean HKA precision was 1.5 ± 0.9 in FH group and 1.3 ± 0.7 in PSI (P value = n.s.), the mean MPTA precision was 1.6 ± 1.6 in FH group and 2.1 ± 1.2 in PSI (P value = n.s.), the mean m-LDFA precision was 1.9 ± 1.7 in FH group and 1.4 ± 1.3 in PSI (P value = n.s.), and the mean JLCA precision in the FH group was 1.5 ± 1.2 and 1.7 ± 1.2 in PSI (P value = n.s.). For all the radiographic parameters, there were no statistically significant differences between the target correction and the obtained correction in both groups. Moreover, PSI and FH techniques were comparable in terms of clinical outcomes and no significant difference was found between the two groups in any of the 2-year follow-up KOOS sub-scores.

CONCLUSION

Conventional FH method in the hands of experienced surgeons is as precise as PSI in reliably achieving the planned correction in different coronal plane knee corrective osteotomies. Moreover, there was also no difference between both methods in the 2-year clinical outcome scores.

Preoperative Planning and Preservation of the Knee with Complex Osteotomies

The knee is a complex structure composed of bone, cartilage, menisci, ligaments and muscles, which all work synergistically to optimize congruence, stability, and function. Osteotomies are procedures addressing an abnormal joint alignment, shifting the mechanical load from a diseased joint compartment to a healthier one. Preoperative planning is an important art of identifying the source of abnormal load distribution to the joint, enabling the surgeon to simulate a deformity correction ahead of the surgical procedure.

Is patient-specific instrumentation more precise than conventional techniques and navigation in achieving planned correction in high tibial osteotomy?

INTRODUCTION

Preoperative planning in high tibial osteotomy (HTO) is a critical step for achieving the desired correction and a clinically satisfactory outcome. Conventional radiography, navigation assistance and patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) are the 3 means of planning, but no prospective studies have compared precision between the 3. The aims of the present study were: (1) to analyze and compare correction precision between the 3 planning approaches at 1 year's follow-up; (2) to compare results to those reported in the literature; and (3) to analyze factors influencing the achievement of planned correction.

HYPOTHESIS

The study hypothesis was that PSI provides more precise and reproducible planned correction than conventional methods or navigation.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Between June 2017 and June 2018, a multicenter non-randomized prospective observational study was conducted in 11 centers. One hundred and twenty-six patients with Ahlbäck grade I, II or III idiopathic medial tibiofemoral osteoarthritis with stable knee were included and allocated to 3 preoperative planning groups: conventional (group 1), navigation (group 2) and PSI (group 3). Mean age at surgery was 51.2 years (range, 19-69 years; median, 53.2 years); 100 male, 26 female. Complete weight-bearing radiographic work-up was performed preoperatively and at 1 year's follow-up. The PSI group also underwent CT as part of guide production. Target angular correction and mechanical Hip-Knee-Ankle (HKA) axis were set preoperatively. The main endpoint was the difference between planned HKA and HKA at a minimum 12 months.

RESULTS

Mean HKA difference was 1.1±3 in group 1, 2.1±2.6 in group 2 and 0.3±3.1 in group 3. Precision was better with PSI, but not significantly when comparing all 3 groups together. On pairwise intergroup comparison, there was a significant difference only between groups 2 and 3, in favor of PSI (P=0.011).

DISCUSSION

None of the 3 techniques demonstrated superiority in achieving target correction at 1 year. The study hypothesis was thus not confirmed. All 3 techniques proved reliable and precise in HTO planning.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, prospective non-randomized comparative study.