Adam I Edelstein, Alexander D Orsi, Christopher Plaskos, Simon Coffey, Linda I Suleiman
{"title":"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。","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":null,"pages":null},"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":"{\"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}","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}
Imageless robotic total knee arthroplasty determines similar coronal plane alignment of the knee (CPAK) parameters to long leg radiographs.
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
