Imageless robotic total knee arthroplasty determines similar coronal plane alignment of the knee (CPAK) parameters to long leg radiographs.

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Adam I Edelstein, Alexander D Orsi, Christopher Plaskos, Simon Coffey, Linda I Suleiman
{"title":"Imageless robotic total knee arthroplasty determines similar coronal plane alignment of the knee (CPAK) parameters to long leg radiographs.","authors":"Adam I Edelstein, Alexander D Orsi, Christopher Plaskos, Simon Coffey, Linda I Suleiman","doi":"10.1186/s42836-024-00231-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The coronal plane alignment of the knee (CPAK) classification was first developed using long leg radiographs (LLR) and has since been reported using image-based and imageless robotic total knee arthroplasty (TKA) systems. However, the correspondence between imageless robotics and LLR-derived CPAK parameters has yet to be investigated. This study therefore examined the differences in CPAK parameters determined with LLR and imageless robotic navigation using either generic or optimized cartilage wear assumptions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) and lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA) were determined from the intraoperative registration data of 61 imageless robotic TKAs using either a generic 2 mm literature-based wear assumption (Nav<sub>lit</sub>) or an optimized wear assumption (Nav<sub>opt</sub>) found using an error minimization algorithm. MPTA and LDFA were also measured from preoperative LLR by two observers and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated. MPTA, LDFA, joint line obliquity (JLO), and arithmetic hip-knee-ankle angle (aHKA) were compared between the robotic and the average LLR measurements over the two observers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ICCs between observers for LLR were over 0.95 for MPTA, LDFA, JLO, and aHKA, indicating excellent agreement. Mean CPAK differences were not significant between LLR and Nav<sub>lit</sub> (all differences within 0.6°, P > 0.1) or Nav<sub>opt</sub> (all within 0.1°, P > 0.83). Mean absolute errors (MAE) between LLR and Nav<sub>lit</sub> were: LDFA = 1.4°, MPTA = 2.0°, JLO = 2.1°, and aHKA = 2.7°. Compared to LLR, the generic wear classified 88% and the optimized wear classified 94% of knees within one CPAK group. Bland-Altman comparisons reported good agreement for LLR vs. Nav<sub>lit</sub> and Nav<sub>opt</sub>, with > 95% and > 91.8% of measurements within the limits of agreement across all CPAK parameters, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Imageless robotic navigation data can be used to calculate CPAK parameters for arthritic knees undergoing TKA with good agreement to LLR. Generic wear assumptions determined MPTA and LDFA with MAE within 2° and optimizing wear assumptions showed negligible improvement.</p>","PeriodicalId":52831,"journal":{"name":"Arthroplasty","volume":"6 1","pages":"14"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10909262/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthroplasty","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42836-024-00231-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The coronal plane alignment of the knee (CPAK) classification was first developed using long leg radiographs (LLR) and has since been reported using image-based and imageless robotic total knee arthroplasty (TKA) systems. However, the correspondence between imageless robotics and LLR-derived CPAK parameters has yet to be investigated. This study therefore examined the differences in CPAK parameters determined with LLR and imageless robotic navigation using either generic or optimized cartilage wear assumptions.

Methods: Medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) and lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA) were determined from the intraoperative registration data of 61 imageless robotic TKAs using either a generic 2 mm literature-based wear assumption (Navlit) or an optimized wear assumption (Navopt) found using an error minimization algorithm. MPTA and LDFA were also measured from preoperative LLR by two observers and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated. MPTA, LDFA, joint line obliquity (JLO), and arithmetic hip-knee-ankle angle (aHKA) were compared between the robotic and the average LLR measurements over the two observers.

Results: ICCs between observers for LLR were over 0.95 for MPTA, LDFA, JLO, and aHKA, indicating excellent agreement. Mean CPAK differences were not significant between LLR and Navlit (all differences within 0.6°, P > 0.1) or Navopt (all within 0.1°, P > 0.83). Mean absolute errors (MAE) between LLR and Navlit were: LDFA = 1.4°, MPTA = 2.0°, JLO = 2.1°, and aHKA = 2.7°. Compared to LLR, the generic wear classified 88% and the optimized wear classified 94% of knees within one CPAK group. Bland-Altman comparisons reported good agreement for LLR vs. Navlit and Navopt, with > 95% and > 91.8% of measurements within the limits of agreement across all CPAK parameters, respectively.

Conclusions: Imageless robotic navigation data can be used to calculate CPAK parameters for arthritic knees undergoing TKA with good agreement to LLR. Generic wear assumptions determined MPTA and LDFA with MAE within 2° and optimizing wear assumptions showed negligible improvement.

无图像机器人全膝关节置换术确定的膝关节冠状面对齐(CPAK)参数与长腿X光片相似。
背景:膝关节冠状面对位(CPAK)分类最初是通过长腿X光片(LLR)制定的,后来有报告称使用了基于图像和无图像机器人全膝关节置换术(TKA)系统。然而,无图像机器人与 LLR 导出的 CPAK 参数之间的对应关系还有待研究。因此,本研究采用通用或优化软骨磨损假设,研究了LLR和无图像机器人导航确定的CPAK参数的差异:根据 61 例无图像机器人 TKAs 的术中注册数据,采用基于文献的通用 2 mm 磨损假设 (Navlit) 或使用误差最小化算法找到的优化磨损假设 (Navopt),确定了胫骨近端内侧角 (MPTA) 和股骨远端外侧角 (LDFA)。两名观察者还根据术前 LLR 测量了 MPTA 和 LDFA,并计算了类内相关系数 (ICC)。比较了两名观察者的机器人测量结果和 LLR 平均测量结果之间的 MPTA、LDFA、关节线斜度 (JLO) 和算术髋膝踝角 (aHKA):对于 MPTA、LDFA、JLO 和 aHKA,观察者之间 LLR 的 ICC 均超过 0.95,表明测量结果非常一致。LLR 和 Navlit(所有差异均在 0.6°以内,P > 0.1)或 Navopt(所有差异均在 0.1°以内,P > 0.83)之间的平均 CPAK 差异不显著。LLR 和 Navlit 之间的平均绝对误差(MAE)为LDFA = 1.4°,MPTA = 2.0°,JLO = 2.1°,aHKA = 2.7°。与 LLR 相比,通用磨损可将 88% 的膝关节归入一个 CPAK 组,优化磨损可将 94% 的膝关节归入一个 CPAK 组。Bland-Altman比较显示,LLR与Navlit和Navopt的一致性良好,在所有CPAK参数中,分别有> 95%和> 91.8%的测量结果在一致性范围内:结论:无图像机器人导航数据可用于计算接受TKA的关节炎膝关节的CPAK参数,与LLR有很好的一致性。通用磨损假设确定了 MPTA 和 LDFA,MAE 在 2° 以内,而优化磨损假设的改善效果微乎其微。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Arthroplasty
Arthroplasty ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
49
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信