Varianz der Epikondylenerfassung bei der navigierten Knieendoprothesenimplantation

[The Berlin diagnostic algorithm for painful knee TKA]

BACKGROUND

Approximately 20% of patients are unsatisfied with their postoperative results after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Main causes for revision surgery are periprosthetic infection, aseptic loosing, instability and malalignment. In rare cases secondary progression of osteoarthritis of the patella, periprosthetic fractures, extensor mechanism insufficiency, polyethylene wear and arthrofibrosis can cause the necessity for a reintervention. Identifying the reason for a painful knee arthroplasty can be very difficult, but is a prerequisite for a successful therapy.

AIM

The aim of this article is to provide an efficient analysis of the painful TKA by using a reproducible algorithm.

DISCUSSION

Basic building blocks are the medical history with the core issues of pain character and the time curve of pain concerning surgery. This is followed by the basic diagnostics, including clinical, radiological, and infectiological investigations. Unique failures like periprosthetic infection or aseptic loosening can thereby be diagnosed in the majority of cases. If the cause of pain is not clearly attributable using the basic diagnostics tool, further infectiological investigation or diagnostic imaging are necessary. If the findings are inconsistent, uncommon causes of symptoms, such as extra-articular pathologies, causalgia or arthrofibrosis, have to be considered. In cases of ongoing unexplained pain, a revision is not indicated. These patients should be re-evaluated after a period of time.

Influence of the position of the fibular head after implantation of a total knee prosthesis on femorotibial rotation

A gold standard for the correct rotation of the tibial component has not been established in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The target parameter of correct rotation is the facilitation of femorotibial rotation over the entire range of motion with no implant overhang. Although the origin of the lateral collateral ligament is a recognized landmark for determining the rotation of the femoral component (epicondylar axis), the attachment of the lateral collateral ligament has not been taken into consideration for adjusting tibial rotation until now. The objective of the current investigation was to examine whether the position of the fibular head, as the attachment of the lateral collateral ligament, influences femorotibial rotation. Seventy patients who underwent TKA were enrolled in this retrospective study. Computed tomography (CT) of the operated knee was performed 6 months postoperatively in all cases and the position of the lateral facet of the fibular head and the tibial tuberosity, and the geometric center of the tibia and the femoral epicondyles were determined. The angle between the lateral facet of the fibular head, the geometric center of the tibia, and the tibial tuberosity was 45.7°±6.9°. The angle between the surgical epicondylar axis and the line from tibial tuberosity to tibial center was 69°±8.3°. This close correlation (R=.73; P<.001) shows that the position of the fibular head determines femorotibial rotation. The fibular head may become a helpful landmark for establishing the rotation of the tibial component; it could be useful in interpretation of postoperative CT scans in knees suspected of tibial malrotation.

Kinematic analysis of the flexion axis for correct femoral component placement

PURPOSE

This study evaluates a new method for intraoperative determination of femoral component rotation by a navigation system (flexion axis, FA) driven by joint stability over the range of motion.

METHODS

Seventy-five patients were treated with a navigated total knee replacement. Intraoperatively, the posterior condylar axis (PCA), the Whiteside's line (WL), and the surgical epicondylar axis (EA) were palpated, the flexion gap (FG) was determined, and the FA was calculated. The anatomical landmarks, lines, and angles were determined based on a postoperative computed tomography in all knees. The femoral rotation was intraoperatively determined by the surgeon based on the knowledge of the EA, the PCA, and the FG but not the FA.

RESULTS

The deviation of the palpated EA was 3.5° [0°-13.8°], of the PCA externally rotated by 3° was 2.2° [0°-9.6°], of the WL was 3.8° [0.1°-10.0°], of the FG was 2.5° [0.2°-8.8°], and of the FA was 2.5° [0°-10.0°].

CONCLUSIONS

The FA is a new functionally acquired axis for the determination of optimal femoral component alignment. Whether the FA leads to clinically superior results must be clarified by subsequent studies.

The gap technique does not rotate the femur parallel to the epicondylar axis

INTRODUCTION

In the analysis of painful total knee replacements, the surgical epicondylar axis (SEA) has become established as a standard in the diagnosis of femoral component rotation. It remains unclear whether the gap technique widely used to determine femoral rotation, when applied correctly, results in a rotation parallel to the SEA.

METHOD

In this prospective study, 69 patients (69 joints) were included who received a navigated bicondylar surface replacement due to primary arthritis of the knee joint.

RESULTS

In 67 cases in which a perfect soft-tissue balancing of the extension gap (<1° asymmetry) was achieved, the flexion gap and the rotation of the femoral component necessary for its symmetry was determined and documented. The femoral component was implanted additionally taking into account the posterior condylar axis and the Whiteside's line. Postoperatively, the rotation of the femoral component to the SEA was determined and this was used to calculate the angle between a femur implanted according to the gap technique and the SEA. If the gap technique had been used consistently, it would have resulted in a deviation of the femoral components by -0.6° ± 2.9° (-7.4°-5.9°) from the SEA. The absolute deviation would have been 2.4° ± 1.8°, with a range between 0.2° and 7.4°.

CONCLUSION

Even if the extension gap is perfectly balanced, the gap technique does not lead to a parallel alignment of the femoral component to the SEA. Since the clinical results of this technique are equivalent to those of the femur first technique in the literature, an evaluation of this deviation as a malalignment must be considered critically.