Patient-specific vs. conventional instrumentation TKA: similar effect on implant rotation .
This report has been verified
by one or more authors of the
original publication.
Diese Studie wurde als potenziell hochrangig eingestuft.
Die KI-gesteuerte High-Impact-Metrik von OE schätzt den Einfluss ein, den eine Arbeit wahrscheinlich haben wird, indem sie Signale sowohl aus der Zeitschrift, in der sie veröffentlicht wurde, als auch aus dem wissenschaftlichen Inhalt des Artikels selbst integriert.
Das mit Hilfe modernster natürlicher Sprachverarbeitung entwickelte OE High Impact-Modell sagt die zukünftige Zitationsleistung einer Studie genauer voraus als der Impact-Faktor einer Zeitschrift allein.
Dies ermöglicht eine frühere Erkennung von klinisch bedeutsamer Forschung und hilft den Lesern, sich auf Artikel zu konzentrieren, die die zukünftige Praxis am ehesten beeinflussen werden.
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2014;2(1):6 Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013 Oct;21(10):2213-940 patients, between the ages of 50 and 85, who were unresponsive to conservative treatment and were scheduled to receive total knee arthroplasty (TKA), were randomly assigned into 1 of 2 groups to test the effect of patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) on accuracy and rotational alignment in TKA. Patients received treatment with PSI or through a conventional TKA. Results indicated that PSI did not have a significant effect on the rotational alignment in patients following TKA.
Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?
Was allocation adequately concealed?
Blinding Treatment Providers: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Outcome Assessors: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Patients: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Was loss to follow-up (missing outcome data) infrequent?
Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?
Were outcomes objective, patient-important and assessed in a manner to limit bias (ie. duplicate assessors, Independent assessors)?
Was the sample size sufficiently large to assure a balance of prognosis and sufficiently large number of outcome events?
Was investigator expertise/experience with both treatment and control techniques likely the same (ie.were criteria for surgeon participation/expertise provided)?
Ja = 1
Ungewiss = 0.5
Nicht relevant = 0
Nein = 0
Die Bewertung der Berichtskriterien bewertet die Transparenz, mit der die Autoren die methodischen und studienspezifischen Merkmale der Studie in der Veröffentlichung angeben. Die Bewertung ist in fünf Kategorien unterteilt, die im Folgenden vorgestellt werden.
3/4
Randomization
4/4
Outcome Measurements
2/4
Inclusion / Exclusion
4/4
Therapy Description
3/4
Statistics
Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65
Der Fragilitätsindex ist ein Instrument, das bei der Interpretation signifikanter Ergebnisse hilft und ein Maß für die Stärke eines Ergebnisses liefert. Der Fragilitätsindex gibt die Anzahl der aufeinanderfolgenden Ereignisse an, die zu einem dichotomen Ergebnis hinzugefügt werden müssen, damit das Ergebnis nicht mehr signifikant ist. Eine kleine Zahl steht für ein schwächeres Ergebnis und eine große Zahl für ein stärkeres Ergebnis.
Warum wurde diese Studie jetzt benötigt?
Implant malposition has been reported to be as high as 20-40% when using conventional instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty. To reduce the likelihood of implant malposition patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) was introduced with the goal of improving implant positioning and reducing the overall cost and surgery time needed to complete the procedure. Previous studies have shown that PSI can successfully restore the mechanical axis, but very little information has been gathered regarding the role of PSI in the rotation of the tibial and femoral implants. This study was brought forward to assess the matching of preoperative planning and postoperative position of the TKA implants, and to closely analyze the femoral rotation of implants positioned with or without PSI.
Was war die wichtigste Forschungsfrage?
Does the use of patient-specific instruments improve the accuracy of the rotational alignment in TKA?
- Patients in the PSI group experienced <2 degrees or mm of difference between the planned position of the femoral implant and the obtained position in all femoral measurements except distal cut flexion angle (Mean difference of 2.6 degrees, 95% CI= 0.9)
- Patients in the PSI group experienced <2 degrees of difference between the planned position of the tibial implant and the obtained position when analyzing average tibial proximal cut (1.2 degrees), but not when looking at mean tibial slope angle (Mean difference of 2.2 degrees, 95% CI= 0.8), and tibial rotation (Mean difference of 6.8 degrees, 95% CI= 2.1).
- A total of 90% of all patients in the PSI group experienced less than 2 degrees or less than 2 mm of difference between the planned position of the femoral and tibial implants and their obtained positions, expect for when measuring tibial rotation, where the variations were much higher.
- No difference was observed between the two groups when analyzing weight-bearing full length X-rays 3 months after surgery. Mean HKA was 179 degrees in the PSI group with 4 outliers compared to 178.3 degrees with 2 outliers in the control group (p>0.05).
- No difference was found between the two groups concerning frontal and sagittal position of implants measured through Ml and AP X-rays (FFC, FTC, LFC, and LTC angle, and tibial slope, p>0.05 for all measurements).
- No significant difference in femoral rotation was observed between the two groups with a mean of 0.4 degrees begin expressed in the PSI group compared to 0.2 degrees in the control group (p>0.05).
- Mean tibial rotation was 8 degrees of internal rotation in the PSI group compared to 15 degrees of internal rotation in the control (p>0.05).
Was sollte ich mir besonders merken?
90% of all patients in the PSI group experienced less than 2 degrees or less than 2 mm of difference between the planned position of the femoral and tibial implants and their obtained positions, expect for when measuring tibial rotation, where the variations were much higher. No difference was observed between the two groups when analyzing weight-bearing full length X-rays 3 months after surgery or when concerning frontal and sagittal position of implants measured through Ml and AP X-rays. No difference in femoral rotation was found between the groups. Average tibial rotation was also similar between the two groups.
Wie wird sich dies auf die Behandlung meiner Patienten auswirken?
The results of this study indicate that PSI does not improve rotation/ rotational alignment in TKA. Further research must be completed on the topic of patient-specific instrumentation to fully understand the effect it has on outcomes following TKA.
HAFTUNGSAUSSCHLUSS
Der Inhalt dieser Seite dient nur zu Informationszwecken und ist nicht als Ersatz für professionelle medizinische Beratung, Diagnose oder Behandlung gedacht. Wenn Sie eine medizinische Behandlung benötigen, wenden Sie sich immer an Ihren Arzt oder suchen Sie die nächstgelegene Notaufnahme auf. Die Meinungen, Überzeugungen und Standpunkte, die von den Personen auf dieser Seite geäußert werden, spiegeln nicht die Meinungen, Überzeugungen und Standpunkte von OrthoEvidence wider.
0 von 4 monatliche KOSTENLOSE Artikel freigeschaltet
