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.
Cette étude a été identifiée comme étant potentiellement à fort impact.
L'indicateur High Impact de l'ENP, basé sur l'IA, estime l'influence qu'un article est susceptible d'avoir en intégrant des signaux provenant à la fois de la revue dans laquelle il est publié et du contenu scientifique de l'article lui-même.
Développé à l'aide d'un traitement du langage naturel de pointe, le modèle High Impact de l'ENP prédit avec plus de précision les futures citations d'une étude que le seul facteur d'impact de la revue.
Cela permet d'identifier plus tôt les recherches cliniquement significatives et aide les lecteurs à se concentrer sur les articles les plus susceptibles d'influencer les pratiques futures.
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)?
Oui = 1
Incertain = 0,5
Non pertinent = 0
Non = 0
L'évaluation des critères de rapport permet d'évaluer la transparence avec laquelle les auteurs rapportent les caractéristiques méthodologiques et les caractéristiques de l'essai dans la publication. L'évaluation est divisée en cinq catégories qui sont présentées ci-dessous.
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
L'indice de fragilité est un outil qui aide à l'interprétation des résultats significatifs, en fournissant une mesure de la force d'un résultat. L'indice de fragilité représente le nombre d'événements consécutifs qui doivent être ajoutés à un résultat dichotomique pour que le résultat ne soit plus significatif. Un petit nombre représente un résultat plus faible et un grand nombre un résultat plus fort.
Pourquoi cette étude était-elle nécessaire maintenant ?
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.
Quelle était la principale question de recherche ?
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).
De quoi dois-je me souvenir en priorité ?
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.
Comment cela affectera-t-il les soins prodigués à mes patients ?
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.
AVIS DE NON-RESPONSABILITÉ
Le contenu de cette page est fourni à titre d'information uniquement et n'est pas destiné à remplacer un avis médical, un diagnostic ou un traitement professionnel. Si vous avez besoin d'un traitement médical, demandez toujours l'avis de votre médecin ou rendez-vous au service des urgences le plus proche. Les opinions, croyances et points de vue exprimés par les individus sur le contenu de cette page ne reflètent pas les opinions, croyances et points de vue d'OrthoEvidence.
0 de 4 articles mensuels GRATUITS débloqués
