Muhammed Shafi Thekkumpurath, Devansh Goyal, Arun Kannan
{"title":"超一致植入物能再现后稳定TKR术中矢状面运动吗?使用现代机器人系统进行评估。","authors":"Muhammed Shafi Thekkumpurath, Devansh Goyal, Arun Kannan","doi":"10.1007/s43465-024-01292-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ultracongruent (UC) total knee replacement (TKR) designs, serving as alternatives to posterior stabilized (PS) and cruciate retaining (CR) designs, lack conclusive evidence regarding posterior femoral rollback. This study aimed to compare intraoperative posterior femoral rollback and maximal knee flexion between UC and PS inserts, addressing the paucity of literature on femoral rollback achieved with UC designs in total knee replacement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A consecutive cohort of 20 patients undergoing robotic-assisted primary total knee replacement, posterior femoral rollback and maximal intraoperative knee flexion were assessed. Robotic imaging at varying flexion angles (0°, 45°, 90°, and 120°) was conducted after implanting femoral and tibial components with Ultracongruent and Posterior-Stabilized trial inserts. Femoral contact on the tibia was estimated as a percentage of the sagittal dimension of the tibial component with 0 representing the anterior edge and 100 representing the posterior edge of the tibial component.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In extension, UC inserts exhibited a statistically significant posterior contact point versus PS inserts (56.3 + 4.3 vs 53.5 + 5.3, <i>p</i> = 0.003). Between 0 and 45° flexion, 13 of 20 UC inserts showed a paradoxical anterior translation exceeding 5%, unlike the PS group. At 90° flexion, both displayed consistent posterior femoral rollback, with PS inserts having a more posterior contact point (63.5 + 6.2 vs 67.2 + 5.1, <i>p</i> = .008). At 120° flexion, rollback was similar (70.1 + 8.4 vs 71.3 + 8.4, <i>p</i> = 0.128). Mean maximal flexion was 130° (SD = 6.87) and 133° (SD = 6.72) for UC and PS inserts, respectively (<i>p</i> = 0.0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study indicates UC inserts achieve comparable posterior femoral rollback in deep flexion, supporting their alternative use, despite minor intraoperative flexion differences. However, paradoxical anterior translation in mid-flexion with UC inserts warrants further investigation into wear and clinical outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":13338,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Orthopaedics","volume":"59 1","pages":"108-114"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11680524/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do Ultracongruent Inserts Reproduce the Intraoperative Sagittal Plane Kinematics of Posterior Stabilized TKR? Assessment Using a Modern Robotic System.\",\"authors\":\"Muhammed Shafi Thekkumpurath, Devansh Goyal, Arun Kannan\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s43465-024-01292-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ultracongruent (UC) total knee replacement (TKR) designs, serving as alternatives to posterior stabilized (PS) and cruciate retaining (CR) designs, lack conclusive evidence regarding posterior femoral rollback. This study aimed to compare intraoperative posterior femoral rollback and maximal knee flexion between UC and PS inserts, addressing the paucity of literature on femoral rollback achieved with UC designs in total knee replacement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A consecutive cohort of 20 patients undergoing robotic-assisted primary total knee replacement, posterior femoral rollback and maximal intraoperative knee flexion were assessed. Robotic imaging at varying flexion angles (0°, 45°, 90°, and 120°) was conducted after implanting femoral and tibial components with Ultracongruent and Posterior-Stabilized trial inserts. Femoral contact on the tibia was estimated as a percentage of the sagittal dimension of the tibial component with 0 representing the anterior edge and 100 representing the posterior edge of the tibial component.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In extension, UC inserts exhibited a statistically significant posterior contact point versus PS inserts (56.3 + 4.3 vs 53.5 + 5.3, <i>p</i> = 0.003). Between 0 and 45° flexion, 13 of 20 UC inserts showed a paradoxical anterior translation exceeding 5%, unlike the PS group. At 90° flexion, both displayed consistent posterior femoral rollback, with PS inserts having a more posterior contact point (63.5 + 6.2 vs 67.2 + 5.1, <i>p</i> = .008). At 120° flexion, rollback was similar (70.1 + 8.4 vs 71.3 + 8.4, <i>p</i> = 0.128). Mean maximal flexion was 130° (SD = 6.87) and 133° (SD = 6.72) for UC and PS inserts, respectively (<i>p</i> = 0.0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study indicates UC inserts achieve comparable posterior femoral rollback in deep flexion, supporting their alternative use, despite minor intraoperative flexion differences. However, paradoxical anterior translation in mid-flexion with UC inserts warrants further investigation into wear and clinical outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13338,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Journal of Orthopaedics\",\"volume\":\"59 1\",\"pages\":\"108-114\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11680524/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Journal of Orthopaedics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43465-024-01292-3\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Orthopaedics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43465-024-01292-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:超一致(UC)全膝关节置换术(TKR)设计,作为后路稳定(PS)和十字保留(CR)设计的替代方案,缺乏关于股骨后路回退的确凿证据。本研究旨在比较UC和PS假体之间术中股骨后路回退和最大膝关节屈曲,解决UC设计在全膝关节置换术中实现股骨回退的文献不足的问题。方法:对20例接受机器人辅助的原发性全膝关节置换术、股骨后路回退术和术中最大膝关节屈曲术的患者进行连续队列评估。在使用超一致和后稳定试验植入物植入股骨和胫骨假体后,进行不同屈曲角度(0°、45°、90°和120°)的机器人成像。胫骨上的股骨接触以胫骨组件矢状面尺寸的百分比估计,0代表前缘,100代表胫骨组件后缘。结果:在扩展中,UC植入物与PS植入物相比,具有统计学意义的后接触点(56.3 + 4.3 vs 53.5 + 5.3, p = 0.003)。与PS组不同,在0°至45°屈曲期间,20个UC植入物中有13个显示出超过5%的矛盾前平移。在90°屈曲时,两者均显示出一致的股骨后侧回退,PS插入物具有更多的后侧接触点(63.5 + 6.2 vs 67.2 + 5.1, p = 0.008)。在120°屈曲时,回滚相似(70.1 + 8.4 vs 71.3 + 8.4, p = 0.128)。UC和PS插入物的平均最大屈曲度分别为130°(SD = 6.87)和133°(SD = 6.72) (p = 0.0001)。结论:研究表明,UC植入物在深度屈曲中实现了类似的股后回退,支持其替代使用,尽管术中屈曲有轻微差异。然而,在中屈曲与UC植入物的矛盾前平移值得进一步研究磨损和临床结果。
Do Ultracongruent Inserts Reproduce the Intraoperative Sagittal Plane Kinematics of Posterior Stabilized TKR? Assessment Using a Modern Robotic System.
Background: Ultracongruent (UC) total knee replacement (TKR) designs, serving as alternatives to posterior stabilized (PS) and cruciate retaining (CR) designs, lack conclusive evidence regarding posterior femoral rollback. This study aimed to compare intraoperative posterior femoral rollback and maximal knee flexion between UC and PS inserts, addressing the paucity of literature on femoral rollback achieved with UC designs in total knee replacement.
Methods: A consecutive cohort of 20 patients undergoing robotic-assisted primary total knee replacement, posterior femoral rollback and maximal intraoperative knee flexion were assessed. Robotic imaging at varying flexion angles (0°, 45°, 90°, and 120°) was conducted after implanting femoral and tibial components with Ultracongruent and Posterior-Stabilized trial inserts. Femoral contact on the tibia was estimated as a percentage of the sagittal dimension of the tibial component with 0 representing the anterior edge and 100 representing the posterior edge of the tibial component.
Results: In extension, UC inserts exhibited a statistically significant posterior contact point versus PS inserts (56.3 + 4.3 vs 53.5 + 5.3, p = 0.003). Between 0 and 45° flexion, 13 of 20 UC inserts showed a paradoxical anterior translation exceeding 5%, unlike the PS group. At 90° flexion, both displayed consistent posterior femoral rollback, with PS inserts having a more posterior contact point (63.5 + 6.2 vs 67.2 + 5.1, p = .008). At 120° flexion, rollback was similar (70.1 + 8.4 vs 71.3 + 8.4, p = 0.128). Mean maximal flexion was 130° (SD = 6.87) and 133° (SD = 6.72) for UC and PS inserts, respectively (p = 0.0001).
Conclusions: The study indicates UC inserts achieve comparable posterior femoral rollback in deep flexion, supporting their alternative use, despite minor intraoperative flexion differences. However, paradoxical anterior translation in mid-flexion with UC inserts warrants further investigation into wear and clinical outcomes.
期刊介绍:
IJO welcomes articles that contribute to Orthopaedic knowledge from India and overseas. We publish articles dealing with clinical orthopaedics and basic research in orthopaedic surgery. Articles are accepted only for exclusive publication in the Indian Journal of Orthopaedics. Previously published articles, articles which are in peer-reviewed electronic publications in other journals, are not accepted by the Journal. Published articles and illustrations become the property of the Journal. The copyright remains with the journal. Studies must be carried out in accordance with World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki.