Comparable clinical outcome and implant longevity after CT- or MRI-based patient-specific instruments for total knee arthroplasty: a 2-year follow-up of a RCT

No differences in mid-term survival and clinical outcome between CT- and MRI-based patient-specific instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty, a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

The purpose of this prospective randomized controlled trial was to compare the clinical outcome and the survival rate of total knee arthroplasty between CT- and MRI-based patient-specific instrumentation 5 years after initial surgery.

METHODS

At a mean follow-up of 5.8 years (SD 0.3), 98 patients (64% women, loss to follow-up 28%) were included in this analysis. To assess the differences in clinical outcome, patients fulfilled PROMs preoperatively and at each follow-up moment. At final follow-up, the Forgotten Joint Score was adjusted.

RESULTS

At final follow-up, no new patients underwent revision surgery in both groups. Regarding the clinical outcome, no statistically significant difference between the groups was found. The Forgotten Joint Score was only performed at final follow-up and showed no significant difference between both groups.

CONCLUSION

At mid-term follow-up, survival rates between CT- and MRI-based patient-specific instrumentation did not show a significant difference. Regarding clinical outcome, only the EQ-5D-VAS (p < 0.040) showed a statistically significant difference over time, in favor of the MRI-group.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I.

Patient-specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: a review of the current literature

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is one of the most frequently performed interventions in the field of Orthopaedic surgery. Over the last decades the implantation technique has improved continuously. The majority of patients is satisfied with the clinical outcome of TKA. However in various clinical follow-ups, up to 20% of unsatisfied patients can be observed. Periprosthetic infection and aseptic loosening seem to be the most common reasons for failure. Malalignment has been discussed as a cause of aseptic loosening and often leads to revision surgery. In order to increase the precision of implant positioning and alignment, new technologies such as patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) have been developed. Since the introduction of PSI, multiple clinical studies have been performed analyzing the clinical and radiological outcome of TKA with PSI technique. This review covers the recent literature of PSI in respect to surgical accuracy, clinical outcome, time- and cost-effectiveness.

Patient-specific instrumentation makes sense in total knee arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) surgery was initially developed to increase accuracy. The potential PSI benefits have expanded in the last decade, and other advantages have been published. However, different authors are critical of PSI and argue that the advantages are not such and do not compensate for the extra cost. This article aims to describe the recently published advantages and disadvantages of PSI.

AREAS COVERED

Narrative description of the latest publications related to PSI in accuracy, clinical and functional outcomes, operative time, efficiency, and other benefits.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

We have published high accuracy of the system, with a not clinically relevant loss of accuracy, significantly higher precision with PSI than with conventional instruments, and a high percentage of cases in the optimal range and similar to that obtained with computer-assisted navigation, greater imprecision for tibial slope, a significant blood loss reduction, and time consumption, an acceptable and non-significant increase in the cost per procedure and no difference in complications during hospital admission and at 90 days. We think that PSI will not follow the Scott Parabola and that it will continue to be a valuable type of device in some instances of TKA surgery.

Patientenspezifische Instrumentierung und Totalendoprothesen am Knie

Hintergrund

Die patientenspezifische Instrumentierung (PSI) ist eine vielversprechende neue Technologie in der orthopädischen Chirurgie, die das Ziel verfolgt, die Implantationstechnik der Knietotalendoprothese (Knie-TEP) im Vergleich zur konventionellen Instrumentierung zu vereinfachen und präziser zu machen. Ziel dieses Artikels ist es, Vorteile und Grenzen der PSI für die primäre Knie-TEP zu beschreiben.

Material und Methoden

Es erfolgte eine umfassende Literaturrecherche zum Thema PSI in der Knieprothetik hinsichtlich Evidenz für Planung, Präzision, klinische Ergebnisse, intraoperative Parameter sowie Kosten und Effizienz.

Ergebnisse

Die dreidimensionale Computertomographie (CT) weist in der präoperativen Planung der Knie-TEP eine höhere Genauigkeit auf als 2‑D-Röntgenaufnahmen. Die meisten Arbeiten postulierten keine signifikanten Effekte zugunsten der Genauigkeit der PSI gegenüber der Standard-Knie-TEP. Aber sie berichteten auch nicht, dass die Genauigkeit mit PSI schlechter sei. Hinsichtlich des klinischen Outcomes gibt es genügend Konsens unter den veröffentlichten Studien, um festzuhalten, dass es kurz- und mittelfristig keinen Unterschied zwischen Patienten gibt, die mit PSI oder konventioneller Technik operiert wurden. Eine große Metaanalyse konnte weder eine kürzere Operationszeit noch eine geringere Komplikationsrate für die PSI-Knie-TEP feststellen. Lediglich der intraoperative Blutverlust erwies sich als niedriger im Vergleich zur Standardtechnik, jedoch mit unveränderter Transfusionsrate. Kosteneffektivitätsanalysen lassen schlussfolgern, dass die PSI aktuell (noch) nicht kosteneffektiv ist.

Diskussion

Obwohl die aktuell vorliegenden Studienergebnisse die PSI-Technologie hinsichtlich vieler messbaren Kriterien nicht eindeutig von der Standardtechnik abheben, zeigt die PSI viele theoretische und praktische Vorteile.