I.

PMPGs are already in relatively common use and their short-term clinical results are equal to conventional instrumented TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:939-44.

No abstract

III.

III.

Background and purpose Unicompartmental to total knee arthroplasty revision surgery can be technically demanding. Joint line restoration, rotation, and augmentations can cause difficulties. We describe a new technique in which single-way fitting guides serve to position the knee system cutting blocks.Method Preoperatively, images of the distal femur and proximal tibia are taken using CT scanning. These images are used to create a patient-specific guide that fits in one single position on the contours of the bone and the prosthesis in situ. The guides are fixed with pins and then removed. The pins determine the position of the cutting blocks. 10 consecutive revisions were performed using this technique.Results All guides fitted well. 7 of 10 femoral prostheses were within the desired AP and sagittal angle ± 3°. However, 1 proximal tibia did not have enough bone stock on the medial plateau for adequate fixation of the guide, so conversion to intramedular referencing was performed. This was to be expected after the preoperative planning. All tibial components were within the desired AP angle ± 3° and 7 of 10 were within the desired sagittal angle. Hip-knee-ankle angle was within 0 ± 3° in 8 of 10 cases.Interpretation This new technique makes preoperative planning and execution of this plan during surgery less demanding. Problems such as the need for augmentations can be predicted at the preoperative planning. The instrumentation must be redesigned in order to make this technique work in cases where there is minimal bone stock present.

PurposeTo assess whether there is a significant difference between the alignment of the individual femoral and tibial components (in the frontal, sagittal and horizontal planes) as calculated pre-operatively (digital plan) and the actually achieved alignment in vivo obtained with the use of patient-specific positioning guides (PSPGs) for TKA. It was hypothesised that there would be no difference between post-op implant position and pre-op digital plan.Methods Twenty-six patients were included in this non-inferiority trial. Software permitted matching of the pre-operative MRI scan (and therefore calculated prosthesis position) to a pre-operative CT scan and then to a post-operative full-leg CT scan to determine deviations from pre-op planning in all three anatomical planes.ResultsFor the femoral component, mean absolute deviations from planning were 1.8° (SD 1.3), 2.5° (SD 1.6) and 1.6° (SD 1.4) in the frontal, sagittal and transverse planes, respectively. For the tibial component, mean absolute deviations from planning were 1.7° (SD 1.2), 1.7° (SD 1.5) and 3.2° (SD 3.6) in the frontal, sagittal and transverse planes, respectively. Absolute mean deviation from planned mechanical axis was 1.9°. The a priori specified null hypothesis for equivalence testing: the difference from planning is >3 or <−3 was rejected for all comparisons except for the tibial transverse plane.ConclusionPSPG was able to adequately reproduce the pre-op plan in all planes, except for the tibial rotation in the transverse plane. Possible explanations for outliers are discussed and highlight the importance for adequate training surgeons before they start using PSPG in their day-by-day practise.Level of evidenceProspective cohort study, Level II.

Purpose The aim of this two-centre RCT was to compare pre-and post-operative radiological, clinical and functional outcomes between patient-speciic instrumentation (PSI) and conventional instrumented (CI) unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). It was hypothesised that both alignment methods would have comparable post-operative radiological, clinical and functional outcomes. Methods One hundred and twenty patients were included, and randomly allocated to the PSI or the CI group. Outcome measures were peri-operative outcomes (operation time, length of hospital stay and intra-operative changes of implant size) and post-operative radiological outcomes including the alignment of the tibial and femoral component in the sagittal and frontal plane and the hip-knee-ankle-axis (HKA-axis), rate of adverse events (AEs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) pre-operatively and at 3, 12 and 24 months post-operatively. Results There was a statistically signiicant diference (p < 0.05) in alignment of the femoral component in the frontal plane in favour of the CI method. No statistically signiicant diferences were found for the peri-operative data or in the functional outcome at 2-year follow-up. In the PSI group, the approved implant size of the femoral component was correct in 98.2% of the cases and the tibial component was correct in 60.7% of the cases. There was a comparable rate of AEs: 5.1% in the CI and 5.4% in the PSI group. ConclusionThe PSI method did not show an advantage over CI in regard of positioning of the components, nor did it show an improvement in clinical or functional outcome. We conclude that the possible advantages of PSI do not outweigh the costs of the MRI scan and the manufacturing of the PSI. Level of evidence Randomised controlled trial, level I.