Patient-specific instrumentation improved mechanical alignment, while early clinical outcome was comparable to conventional instrumentation in TKAAnderl, W., Pauzenberger, L., Kölblinger, R. et al.
The aim of this prospective study was to compare early clinical outcome, radiological limb alignment, and three-dimensional (3D)-component positioning between conventional and computed tomography (CT)-based patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) in primary mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
Two hundred ninety consecutive patients (300 knees) with severe, debilitating osteoarthritis scheduled for TKA were included in this study using either conventional instrumentation (CVI, n = 150) or PSI (n = 150). Patients were clinically assessed before and 2 years after surgery according to the Knee-Society-Score (KSS) and the visual-analog-scale for pain (VAS). Additionally, the Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the Oxford-Knee-Score (OKS) were collected at follow-up. To evaluate accuracy of CVI and PSI, hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA) and 3D-component positioning were assessed on postoperative radiographs and CT.
Data of 222 knees (CVI: n = 108, PSI: n = 114) were available for analysis after a mean follow-up of 28.6 ± 5.2 months. At the early follow-up, clinical outcome (KSS, VAS, WOMAC, OKS) was comparable between the two groups. Mean HKA-deviation from the targeted neutral mechanical axis (CVI: 2.2° ± 1.7°; PSI: 1.5° ± 1.4°; p < 0.001), rates of outliers (CVI: 22.2 %; PSI: 9.6 %; p = 0.016), and 3D-component positioning outliers were significantly lower in the PSI group. Non-outliers (HKA: 180° ± 3°) showed better clinical results than outliers at the 2-year follow-up.
CT-based PSI compared with CVI improves accuracy of mechanical alignment restoration and 3D-component positioning in primary TKA. While clinical outcome was comparable between the two instrumentation groups at early follow-up, significantly inferior outcome was detected in the subgroup of HKA-outliers.
Level of evidence
Prospective comparative study, Level II.