ARTHROPLASTY
Patient-specific instrumentation does not improve radiographic alignment or clinical outcomes after total knee arthroplasty
This report has been verified
by one or more authors of the
original publication.
この研究はハイインパクトの可能性があります。
OEのAI駆動型ハイインパクト指標は、論文が掲載されたジャーナルと論文自体の科学的内容の両方からのシグナルを統合することで、論文が持つ可能性の高い影響力を推定します。
最先端の自然言語処理を用いて開発されたOEハイインパクトモデルは、ジャーナルのインパクトファクターのみよりも、研究の将来の引用実績をより正確に予測します。
これにより、臨床的に意義のある研究をより早く認識することが可能になり、読者は将来の診療を形成する可能性が最も高い論文に集中することができます。
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2016;4(22):3 Acta Orthop. 2016 Aug;87(4):386-9421 studies evaluating the use of patient-specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty were included in this meta-analysis and systematic review. Pooled analyses demonstrated no significant difference between patient-specific instrumentation systems and conventional instruments in the incidence of excessive malalignment (>3 degrees deviation) in hip-knee-ankle angle. Additionally, the incidence of femoral component outliers in the coronal, sagittal, and axial planes, and tibial component outliers in the sagittal plane did not significantly differ, while tibial component outliers in the coronal plane occurred significantly more often with patient-specific instrumentation. No significant differences were found in short-term (3-month) clinical outcome measures. Two analyses which did favour patient-specific instrumentation were a lower number of surgical trays required during the procedure and shorter length of stay.
Were the search methods used to find evidence (original research) on the primary question or questions stated?
Was the search for evidence reasonably comprehensive?
Were the criteria used for deciding which studies to include in the overview reported?
Was the bias in the selection of studies avoided?
Were the criteria used for assessing the validity of the included studies reported?
Was the validity of all of the studies referred to in the text assessed with use of appropriate criteria (either in selecting the studies for inclusion or in analyzing the studies that were cited)?
Were the methods used to combine the findings of the relevant studies (to reach a conclusion) reported?
Were the findings of the relevant studies combined appropriately relative to the primary question that the overview addresses?
Were the conclusions made by the author or authors supported by the data and or analysis reported in the overview?
How would you rate the scientific quality of this evidence?
はい = 1
不確実＝0.5
無関係 = 0
いいえ = 0
報告基準評価では、著者が出版物内で試験の方法論的特徴や試験特性を報告する際の透明性を評価します。評価は以下の5つのカテゴリーに分類されます。
4/4
Introduction
4/4
Accessing Data
4/4
Analysing Data
4/4
Results
3/4
Discussion
Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65
Fragility Indexは、重要な所見の解釈を助けるツールで、結果の強さの尺度を提供します。Fragility Indexは、その所見が有意でなくなるために、二項対立の結果に追加する必要がある連続した事象の数を表します。数値が小さいほど弱い所見を表し、数値が大きいほど強い所見を表します。
なぜ今この研究が必要なのですか？
Patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) for component implantation in total knee arthroplasty is a recently-developed technology, with a number of randomized controlled trials performed investigating the systems of major orthopaedic device companies. PSI systems were designed to improve component alignment in these procedures, though conclusions on efficacy from previous studies vary widely. A synthesis of the literature was therefore needed to assess the current status of the role of PSI in TKA procedures.
主な研究課題は何ですか？
In total knee arthroplasty, are there any significant differences in radiographic alignment accuracy of component placement, perioperative parameters (blood loss, operative time, etc), and patient-reported outcome measures between patient-specific instrumentation and conventional instrumentation?
重要な知見は？
- There was no significant difference in the incidence of outliers in hip-knee-ankle angle (>3deg deviation from neutral) overall between patient-specific and conventional instruments (13 studies; RR 1.02 [95%CI 0.82-1.27]; p=0.86), or when specific products (PSI-Zimmer, Signature-Biomet, TruMatch-DePuy, Visionaire-Smith & Nephew) were analyzed as subgroups (all p>0.05).
- There was no significant difference between groups in the incidence of femoral component outliers in the coronal plane (11 studies; RR 0.81 [95%CI 0.6-1.09]). The incidence of tibial component outliers in the coronal plane was significantly higher among patient specific groups (11 studies; RR 1.64 [95%CI 1.12-2.42]).
- There were no significant differences between groups in the incidence of outliers in the sagittal plane of either the femoral component (8 studies; RR 0.97 [95%CI 0.82-1.15]) or the tibial component (8 studies; RR 1.47 [95%CI 0.97-2.23]).
- There was no significant difference between groups in the incidence of femoral component rotational outliers (6 studies; RR 0.80 [95%CI 0.52-1.23]).
- No significant difference between patient-specific and conventional instrumentation groups was observed in operative time (12 studies; MD -0.90min [95%CI -4.78, 2.98]; p=0.65) or tourniquet time (3 studies; MD -6min [95%CI -21.2, 10.1]). No significant differences were observed in analyses of intra-, postoperative, and total perioperative blood loss.
- The length of hospital stay was shortened by 8 hours (95%CI 3.1-12.5) following the use of patient-specific instrumentation versus conventional instrumentation.
- Two studies demonstrated a significantly lower use of surgical trays (MD 4 trays [95%CI 2.58-5.61]) with patient-specific versus conventional instrumentation.
- No significant differences between groups were observed in patient-reported outcome measures at 3 months, including Knee Society Scores and Oxford Knee Scores.
最も覚えておくべきことは？
In total knee arthroplasty, the use of patient-specific instrumentation did not significantly reduce the incidence of malalignment overall, or of individual components in the coronal, sagittal, and axial planes. In fact, the incidence of tibial component outliers in the coronal plane was significantly higher following TKA with patient-specific instrumentation. No significant differences were observed in analyses of operative time, blood loss, or short-term clinical outcome. Advantages with the use of patient-specific instrumentation were noted concerning the number of surgical trays during the procedure, as well as in length of hospital stay.
それが私の患者ケアにどのように影響するか？
The results of this study suggest that there is no radiographic or clinical advantage to the use of patient-specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty, and in fact may compromise alignment of the tibial component. Benefits of patient-specific instrumentation appear limited to parameters of resource consumption, as evidenced by the analyses on surgical trays and the short, but significant, reduction in hospital stay. An economic analysis is needed to determine if these improvements in efficiency off-set the cost of the patient-specific instrumentation technology itself, as well as the preoperative imaging required to make the technology.
免責事項
このページに記載されている内容は、情報提供のみを目的としたものであり、専門的な医療アドバイス、診断、治療の代わりとなるものではありません。治療が必要な場合は、必ず医師の診断を仰ぐか、最寄りの救急外来を受診してください。このページに記載されている内容に関して個人が表明した意見、信念、見解は、OrthoEvidenceの意見、信念、見解を反映するものではありません。
0の4 月間無料記事のロック解除
