Download PDF
Z Orthop Unfall 2024; 162(02): 179-184
DOI: 10.1055/a-1918-2383
Originalarbeit

Die Zuverlässigkeit der präoperativen Knietotalendoprothesenplanung - ein Vergleich zweier Kalibrierungsmarker

Article in several languages: deutsch | English
David Grevenstein 
1   Department for Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, Medical Faculty of the University of Cologne, Koln, Deutschland (Ringgold ID: RIN61059)
,
Johannes Oppermann
1   Department for Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, Medical Faculty of the University of Cologne, Koln, Deutschland (Ringgold ID: RIN61059)
,
Christian Karl Spies
2   Handchirurgie, Vulpius Klinik, Bad Rappenau, Deutschland
,
Christian Paul
3   Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Evangelische Kliniken Johanniter- und Waldkrankenhaus Bonn gGmbH, Bonn, Deutschland (Ringgold ID: RIN62461)
,
Peer Eysel
1   Department for Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, Medical Faculty of the University of Cologne, Koln, Deutschland (Ringgold ID: RIN61059)
,
Nadine Ott
1   Department for Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, Medical Faculty of the University of Cologne, Koln, Deutschland (Ringgold ID: RIN61059)
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund Die präoperative Prothesenplanung ist der Goldstandard bei der Implantation einer elektiven Knietotalendoprothese. In dieser Studie führen wir eine retrospektive Analyse zweier verschiedener Kalibrationsmarker durch. Methoden Die präoperative Implantatplanung mittels MediCad wurde in 231 Fällen durchgeführt. Wir verglichen in 2 Gruppen die Treffsicherheit einer Kalibration mittels Kugelmarker gegen eine mithilfe des KingMark-Systems durchgeführte Kalibrierung, indem die präoperativ geplanten Größen mit den tatsächlich implantierten Größen verglichen wurden. Resultate Insgesamt zeigte sich in 60,4% (n = 140) der Fälle kein kombiniertes femorotibiales Match, sprich mindestens eines der geplanten Implantate wich in seiner Größe von der Planung ab. In 39,4% (n = 91) zeigte sich eine treffende Vorhersage der Implantatgrößen in der Messung sowohl femoral als auch tibial. Gruppe 1 zeigte eine statistisch signifikant bessere Vorhersage der Implantatgröße für das kombinierte femorotibiale Match der Implantatgrößen sowie für die femorale Größe allein. Schlussfolgerung Auf Basis unserer Studie sollte das KingMark-Kalibrierungssystem gegenüber standardisierten Kugelmarkern bevorzugt werden. Insgesamt liefern beide Systeme jedoch keine zufriedenstellende Vorhersage der tatsächlichen Prothesengröße.

Schlüsselwörter

Knie - Totalendoprothese - Planung - TEP


Publication History

Received: 16 May 2022

Accepted after revision: 01 August 2022

Article published online:
04 October 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Steiner C, Andrews R, Barrett M. U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. et al. HCUP Projections: Mobility/Orthopedic Procedures 2003 to 2012. 2012. HCUP Projections Report # 2012–03. 20.09.2012 Accessed September 20, 2022 at: https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/projections/2012–03.pdf
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Singh JA, Yu S, Chen L. et al. Rates of Total Joint Replacement in the United States: Future Projections to 2020–2040 Using the National Inpatient Sample. J Rheumatol 2019; 46: 1134-1140
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Evans JT, Walker RW, Evans JP. et al. How long does a knee replacement last? A systematic review and meta-analysis of case series and national registry reports with more than 15 years of follow-up. Lancet 2019; 393: 655-663
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM. et al. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468: 57-63
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Kim TK, Chang CB, Kang YG. et al. Causes and predictors of patient’s dissatisfaction after uncomplicated total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2009; 24: 263-271
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Robertsson O, Lidgren L, Sundberg M, Dahl A. The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register, Annual Report 2019. Accessed September 06, 2019 at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338541305_The_Swedish_Knee_Arthroplasty_Register_-_Annual_report_2019
    PubMed
  • 7 Tarwala R. Tourniquet Versus No Tourniquet in Total Knee Arthroplasty: We Don’t Have a Winner Yet. Commentary on article by Rahul Goel, MD, et al.: “Tourniquet Use Does Not Affect Functional Outcomes or Pain After Total Knee Arthroplasty. A Prospective, Double-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial”. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2019; 101: e109
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Sharma GM, Palekar G, Tanna DD. Use of closed suction drain after primary total knee arthroplasty – an overrated practice. SICOT J 2016; 2: 39
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Li C, Qu J, Pan S. et al. Local infiltration anesthesia versus epidural analgesia for postoperative pain control in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res 2018; 13: 112
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Berninger MT, Friederichs J, Leidinger W. et al. Effect of local infiltration analgesia, peripheral nerve blocks, general and spinal anesthesia on early functional recovery and pain control in total knee arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2018; 19: 232
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Bonnin MP, Saffarini M, Shepherd D. et al. Oversizing the tibial component in TKAs: incidence, consequences and risk factors. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2016; 24: 2532-2540
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Nielsen CS, Nebergall A, Huddleston J. et al. Medial Overhang of the Tibial Component Is Associated With Higher Risk of Inferior Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Pain After Knee Replacement. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33: 1394-1398
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Efe T, El Zayat BF, Heyse TJ. et al. Precision of preoperative digital templating in total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Belg 2011; 77: 616-621
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Al-Ashqar M, Aslam N, Azhar MS. et al. KingMark’s dual-marker versus a conventional single-marker templating system: is there a difference in accuracy of predicting final implant sizes and leg lengths. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2021;
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Warschawski Y, Shichman I, Morgan S. et al. The accuracy of external calibration markers in digital templating using the double marker and single marker method: a comparative study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2020; 140: 1559-1565
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Dammerer D, Keiler A, Herrnegger S. et al. Accuracy of digital templating of uncemented total hip arthroplasty at a certified arthroplasty center: a retrospective comparative study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2021;
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Wang Q, Xiao J, Zhu L. et al. Acetate templating on calibrated standing digital radiograph improves accuracy of preoperative templating for total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2017; 103: 341-347
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Shichman I, Factor S, Shaked O. et al. Effects of surgeon experience and patient characteristics on accuracy of digital pre-operative planning in total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 2020; 44: 1951-1956
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Sinclair VF, Wilson J, Jain NP. et al. Assessment of accuracy of marker ball placement in pre-operative templating for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 1658-1660
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 White Paper on Joint Replacement: Status of Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Care in Germany [Internet]. Bleß HH, Kip M. Berlin (Germany): Springer; 2018.
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Tanzer M, Makhdom AM. Preoperative Planning in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2016; 24: 220-230
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Bracey DN, Brown ML, Beard HR. et al. Effects of patellofemoral overstuffing on knee flexion and patellar kinematics following total knee arthroplasty: a cadaveric study. Int Orthop 2015; 39: 1715-1722
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Kemp MA, Metcalfe AJ, Sayers A. et al. Does overstuffing of the patellofemoral joint in total knee arthroplasty have a significant effect on postoperative outcomes?. Knee 2018; 25: 874-881
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Beldman M, Breugem SJ, van Jonbergen HP. Overstuffing in total knee replacement: no effect on clinical outcomes or anterior knee pain. Int Orthop 2015; 39: 887-891
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Simsek ME, Akkaya M, Gursoy S. et al. Posterolateral overhang affects patient quality of life after total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2018; 138: 409-418
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Clarke HJ, Ginnha RH, Cox QG. et al. Computerized templating in uncemented total hip arthroplasty to assess component fit and fill. J Arthroplasty 1992; 7: 235-239
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Peek AC, Bloch B, Auld J. How useful is templating for total knee replacement component sizing?. Knee 2012; 19: 266-269
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Radtke K, Becher C, Noll Y. et al. Effect of limb rotation on radiographic alignment in total knee arthroplasties. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2010; 130: 451-457
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Moon HS, Choi CH, Jung M. et al. The effect of knee joint rotation in the sagittal and axial plane on the measurement accuracy of coronal alignment of the lower limb. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2020; 21: 470
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Maderbacher G, Schaumburger J, Baier C. et al. Predicting knee rotation by the projection overlap of the proximal fibula and tibia in long-leg radiographs. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2014; 22: 2982-2988
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar