[Individualized total knee arthroplasty]

Improved Knee Function with Customized vs. Off-the-Shelf TKA Implants-Results of a Single-Surgeon, Single-Center, Single-Blinded Study

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have been able to show certain benefits of Customized, Individually Made (CIM) compared to Off-the-Shelf (OTS) total knee arthroplasties (TKAs), but evidence is still lacking regarding the benefits of these implant systems. This study aimed to find differences in scores and functional outcome by comparing CIM and OTS implants, using Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and functional tests for activities of daily living in a single-surgeon setup.

METHODS

A total of 48 patients (16 CIM vs. 32 OTS) were consecutively enrolled and blindly examined. Functional testing was performed using four timed functional tests (TUG, WALK, TUDS, and BBS) and the VAS for pain. The Aggregated Locomotor Function (ALF) score was then calculated based on the addition of the average times of the three functional tests.

RESULTS

The CIM group showed significantly faster times in all functional tests and significantly better ALF scores. There were remarkable differences in the assessment of maximum pain sensation between the two groups, with superiority in the CIM group. The PROMs analysis revealed a higher proportion of excellent and good ratings for the items objective and function (KSS) in the CIM group.

CONCLUSION

The study showed that time-limited activities of daily living (ADLs) can be completed significantly faster with a CIM prosthesis and that a significantly higher percentage in this group reports freedom from pain during certain loads. Partial aspects of the PROM scores are also better in this group; however, this superiority could not be shown with regard to most PROM scores collected in this study.

Insufficient evidence to confirm benefits of custom partial knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesise the available literature and critically appraise current evidence on the functional and radiographic outcomes as well as reoperation and revision rates of custom partial knee arthroplasty, i.e., unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), bicompartmental knee arthroplasty (BKA), and patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This systematic review was performed in accordance with the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and a protocol was registered with Prospero. On 25 May 2021, two authors independently searched and screened Level I-IV studies that reported on outcomes of custom partial knee arthroplasty using the databases of MEDLINE^®, EMBASE^®, and the Cochrane Library without restriction on date of publication. Findings from eligible articles were synthesised and tabulated, and quality assessments were done according to the guidelines of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Checklists.

RESULTS

Fifteen articles were eligible for data extraction, of which two comparative and four case series were on custom UKA (follow-up, 0-9 months), one comparative and five case series on custom BKA (follow-up, 0.25-72 months), and three case series on custom PFA (follow-up, 2-119 months). Three studies on custom UKA reported mean Knee Society Score (KSS) Knee of 86-94 and mean KSS Function of 94-95, and two studies on custom BKA reported mean KSS Knee of 90-94 and KSS function of 81, whereas one study on custom PFA reported KSS Knee of 91 and KSS Function of 89. Custom implants tended to have less bone-implant mismatch compared to off the shelf (OTS) implants. Revision rates were 3-25% for custom UKA (at 0-109 months), 3-5% for custom BKA (at 12-72 months), and 0-14% for custom PFA (at 2-119 months).

CONCLUSION

Due to the small number of comparative studies and lack of consistency in reported outcomes, it remains difficult to ascertain the benefits of custom partial knee arthroplasty. Anecdotal evidence suggests that, compared to OTS implants, custom implants result in less bone-implant mismatch and that 78-91% of patients are either satisfied or very satisfied after custom partial knee arthroplasty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

The Impact of Total Knee Replacement with a Customized Cruciate-Retaining Implant Design on Patient-Reported and Functional Outcomes

Purpose: To treat patients with tricompartimental knee osteoarthritis (OA), a customized cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty (CCR-TKA) system can be used, including both individualized instrumentation and implants. The objective of this monocentric cohort study was to analyze patient-reported and functional outcomes in a series of patients implanted with the second generation of this customized implant. Methods: At our arthroplasty center, we prospectively recruited a cohort of patients with tricompartmental gonarthrosis to be treated with total knee replacement (TKA) using a customized cruciate-retaining (CCR) implant design. Inclusion criteria for patients comprised the presence of intact posterior cruciate and collateral ligaments and a knee deformity that was restricted to <15° varus, valgus, or flexion contracture. Patients were assessed for their range of motion (ROM), Knee Society Score (KSS), Western Ontario and McMaster University osteoarthritis index (WOMAC), and short form (SF)-12 physical and mental scores, preoperatively, at 3 and 6 months, as well as at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years of follow-up (FU) postoperatively. Results: The average age of the patient population was 64 years (range: 40–81), the average BMI was 31 (range: 23–42), and in total, 28 female and 45 male patients were included. Implant survivorship was 97.5% (one septic loosening) at an average follow-up of 2.5 years. The KSS knee and function scores improved significantly (p < 0.001) from, respectively, 41 and 53 at the pre-operative visit, to 92 and 86, respectively, at the 5-year post-operative time point. The SF-12 Physical and Mental scores significantly (p < 0.001) improved from the pre-operative values of 28 and 50, to 50 and 53 at the 5-year FU, respectively. Patients experienced significant improvements in their overall knee range of motion, from 106° at the preoperative visit to 122°, on average, 5 years postoperatively. The total WOMAC score significantly (p < 0.001) improved from 49.1 preoperatively to 11.4 postoperatively at 5-year FU. Conclusions: Although there was no comparison to other implants within this study, patients reported high overall satisfaction and improvement in functional outcomes within the first year from surgery, which continued over the following years. These mid-term results are excellent compared with those reported in the current literature. Comparative long-term studies with this device are needed. Level of evidence 3b (individual case–control study).

No difference in patient-reported satisfaction after 12 months between customised individually made and off-the-shelf total knee arthroplasty

PURPOSE

A subset of patients is usually not satisfied after a total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Customised individually made (CIM) TKA are deemed to overcome drawbacks of classical off-the-shelf (OTS) TKA, but evidence is still sparse. The aim of this study was to compare satisfaction of patients with CIM and OTS TKA.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study compared clinical and patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) between patients with CIM and OTS TKA. The primary outcome was patient satisfaction after 12 months. Secondary outcomes were the Knee Society Score (KSS), the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS-12) and the EQ-5D-3L after 4 and 12 months.

RESULTS

Data were analysed from 74 CIM TKA and 169 OTS TKA between January 2017 and September 2020. Patients with CIM TKA were slightly younger, more often male, had a lower body mass index, a lower KSS and partially higher preoperative PROMs. Patient satisfaction after 12 months was high and comparable (CIM 87%, OTS 89%). All PROMs improved for both groups (p < 0.001) and did not differ after 12 months (p > 0.063). The majority of patients improved above the minimal important difference (range 65 to 89%) and reported a clear overall improvement (CIM 86%, OTS 87%). The postoperative KSS, notably regarding knee stability, was higher for CIM TKA (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

No difference was found in patient satisfaction between CIM and OTS TKA after 12 months. In both groups, patient satisfaction was high and PROMs improved considerably.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II, prospective cohort study.

Patient-specific cruciate-retaining total knee replacement with individualized implants and instruments (iTotal™ CR G2)

OBJECTIVE

Treatment of tricompartimental osteoarthritis (OA) using customized instruments and implants for cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty. Use of patient-specific instruments and implants (ConforMIS iTotal^TM CR G2) together with a 3D-planning protocol (iView®). Retropatellar resurfacing is optional.

INDICATIONS

Symptomatic tricompartmental OA of the knee (Kellgren-Lawrence stage IV) with preserved posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) after unsuccessful conservative or joint-preserving surgical treatment.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

Knee ligament instabilities of the posterior cruciate or collateral ligaments. Infection. Relative contraindication: knee deformities >15° (varus, valgus, flexion); prior partial knee replacement.

SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

Midline or parapatellar medial skin incision, medial arthrotomy; distal femoral resection with patient-specific cutting block; tibial resection using either a cutting jig for the anatomic slope or a fixed 5° slope. Balancing the knee in extension and flexion gap using patient-specific spacer. The final tibial preparation achieved with gap-balanced placement of the femoral cutting jigs. Kinematic testing using anatomic trial components. Final implant components are cemented in extension. Wound layers are sutured. Drainage is optional.

POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT

Sterile wound dressing; compressive bandage. No limitation of the active and passive range of motion. Optional partial weight bearing during the first 2 weeks, then transition to full weight bearing. Follow-up directly after surgery, at 12 and 52 weeks, then every 1-2 years.

RESULTS

Overall 60 patients with tricompartmental knee OA and preserved PCL were treated. Mean age was 66 (range 45-76) years. Minimum follow-up was 12 months. There was 1 septic revision after a low-grade infection, 1 reoperation to replace the patellar due to patellar osteoarthritis and 3 manipulations under anesthesia (MUAs) to increase range of motion. Radiographic analyses demonstrated an ideal implant fit with less than 2 mm subsidence or overhang. The WOMAC score improved from 154.8 points preoperatively to 83.5 points at 1 year and 59.3 points at 2 years postoperatively. The EuroQol-5D Score also improved from 11.1 points preoperatively to 7.7 points at 1 year postoperatively.

Accurate implant fit and leg alignment after cruciate-retaining patient-specific total knee arthroplasty

Background

For improved outcomes in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) correct implant fitting and positioning are crucial. In order to facilitate a best possible implant fitting and positioning patient-specific systems have been developed. However, whether or not these systems allow for better implant fitting and positioning has yet to be elucidated. For this reason, the aim was to analyse the novel patient-specific cruciate retaining knee replacement system iTotal™ CR G2 that utilizes custom-made implants and instruments for its ability to facilitate accurate implant fitting and positioning including correction of the hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA).

Methods

We assessed radiographic results of 106 patients who were treated with the second generation of a patient-specific cruciate retaining knee arthroplasty using iTotal™ CR G2 (ConforMIS Inc.) for tricompartmental knee osteoarthritis (OA) using custom-made implants and instruments. The implant fit and positioning as well as the correction of the mechanical axis (hip-knee-ankle angle, HKA) and restoration of the joint line were determined using pre- and postoperative radiographic analyses.

Results

On average, HKA was corrected from 174.4° ± 4.6° preoperatively to 178.8° ± 2.2° postoperatively and the coronal femoro-tibial angle was adjusted on average 4.4°. The measured preoperative tibial slope was 5.3° ± 2.2° (mean +/− SD) and the average postoperative tibial slope was 4.7° ± 1.1° on lateral views. The joint line was well preserved with an average modified Insall-Salvati index of 1.66 ± 0.16 pre- and 1.67 ± 0.16 postoperatively. The overall accuracy of fit of implant components was decent with a measured medial overhang of more than 1 mm (1.33 mm ± 0.32 mm) in 4 cases only. Further, a lateral overhang of more than 1 mm (1.8 mm ± 0.63) (measured in the anterior-posterior radiographs) was observed in 11 cases, with none of the 106 patients showing femoral notching.

Conclusion

The patient-specific iTotal™ CR G2 total knee replacement system facilitated a proper fitting and positioning of the implant components. Moreover, a good restoration of the leg axis towards neutral alignment was achieved as planned. Nonetheless, further clinical follow-up studies are necessary to validate our findings and to determine the long-term impact of using this patient- specific system.

Patient satisfaction - A comparison between patient-specific implants and conventional total knee arthroplasty

Background

Despite recent innovations in total knee arthroplasty, 20% of the patients are not completely satisfied with the clinical results. Regarding patient-specific implants (PSI), the study aims to compare individual and off-the-shelf implant (OSI) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) concerning the postoperative outcome like function and global patient satisfaction.

Methods

In 2013/14 228 patients received a TKA due to primary osteoarthritis with an indication for a bicondylar, cruciate retaining prosthesis. 125 patients received a PSI and 103 an OSI TKA. The outcome after surgery was evaluated retrospectively by two questionnaires and a clinical follow-up examination. The Knee Society Score (KSS) was used to evaluate function. To compare the satisfaction the Knee Injury and Osteoarthrosis Outcome Score (KOOS) and a modified EuroQol (EQ) including five additional questions were used. Finally, 84 patients with PSI and 57 with OSI completed follow-up.

Results

Concerning demographic data, the PSI group showed a significantly younger age, five years on average. The ROM was comparable in both groups. The KSS and the separate function score achieved significantly better results in the PSI group. For subjects with PSI TKA, the global satisfaction showed significant better values.

Conclusions

The significantly higher values in KSS and its function score lead to a better basic daily function in PSI group. In addition, the PSI TKA achieved a higher global patient satisfaction. Nevertheless, both should mainly be assessed in the context of average younger age and the influence of expectations.

Evaluation of implant fit and frontal plane alignment after bi-compartmental knee arthroplasty using patient-specific instruments and implants

INTRODUCTION

The goals of successful bi-compartmental knee arthroplasty are to achieve correct fit and positioning of the implant, while appropriately correcting the mechanical alignment of the leg after surgery. As these requirements are not always reliably fulfilled using off-the-shelf implant systems, newer approaches for bi-compartmental resurfacing have been explored.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this article we report the radiographic results of 30 patients with anteromedial osteoarthritis (OA) who were treated with a novel patient-specific fixed-bearing bi-compartmental knee resurfacing system using custom-made implants and instruments. Utilizing standardized pre- and postoperative radiographic analyses (based on anterior-posterior and lateral, anterior-posterior weight-bearing full-length radiographs, patella skyline views and preoperative computed tomography (CT) scanning) implant fit and positioning as well as correction of the mechanical axis (hip-knee-ankle angle, HKA) were determined.

RESULTS

On average, HKA was corrected from 173.4 ±3.47° preoperatively to 179.4 ±2.85° postoperatively. The coronal femoro-tibial angle was corrected on average 5.61°. The preoperative tibial slope measured on lateral views was 6.38 ±2.4°, while the average slope in the CT-based planning protocol (iView) was 6.14 ±2.40°. Postoperative lateral tibial slope was determined to be 5.77 ±1.97°. The thickness of the posterior femoral cuts was measured intraoperatively and, in all cases, corresponded well to the targeted thickness of the cuts provided by the iView. The joint line was preserved in all cases and the average Insall-Salvati index was 1.078 ±0.11 pre- and 1.072 ±0.11 postoperatively. The fit of the implant components measured by over- or underhang was excellent throughout (< 1.01 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

Custom-made bicompartmental knee arthroplasty can ensure optimized fitting and positioning of the implant with restoration of the leg axis. These implants could be considered as an alternative primary solution for knee surgeons treating bi-compartmental disease.

[Total knee arthroplasty. Patient-specific instruments and implants]

This article describes the concept and surgical technique of patient-specific total knee arthroplasty. Patient-specific implants and instruments are designed and fabricated based on computed tomography (CT) data of the leg. The disposable patient-specific drill guides and cutting-jigs are manufactured taking into consideration the anatomical and biomechanical axes of the knee joint and mediating the efficient pre-navigation of the osseous saw-cuts, without the need for additional navigation or balancing aids. The surgical plan is made on the basis of the CT data. The implantation technique comprises the following steps: distal femoral resection, tibial resection, balancing and femur preparation, tibia preparation, optional patellar resurfacing, trialling of the test components, and implantation of the final components. By using this patient-specific implant system, which includes not only personalized, single-use instruments, but also individualized implants, the surgeon is able to provide endoprosthetic treatment that broadly restores the patient's own knee anatomy and knee kinematics. Preliminary studies have proven the concept and data on this technology are promising so far; however, like a new implant, they are usually limited. In particular, comparative long-term clinical data are still to come.