Bilateral Mcl Avulsion Following Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Case Report and Review of Literature

Kumar, Nishikant; Kashani, Andalib; Mukhopadhaya, John; Yadav, Chandrashekhar; Anand, Sumit; Ranjan, Rajeev

doi:10.31579/2694-0248/011

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Joint line position is a very important factor which must be considered while performing TKA [20]. Alteration in the joint line position causes increase in patellofemoral forces which can lead to anterior knee pain, mid-lexion instability, patellar tendon impingement, decreased range of motion, patella baja, and accelerated wear [20][21][22]. Restoring the native joint line is important and a deviation in the joint line position of ≥ 2 mm can lead to decrease in the knee lexion [16,35].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robotic-assisted TKA leads to a better prosthesis alignment and a better joint line restoration as compared to conventional TKA: a prospective randomized controlled trial

Vaidya

Deshpande

Panjwani

et al. 2020

Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeCorrect positioning and alignment of the prosthesis is a very important factor for durability of prosthesis and implant survival which is improved with the use of technology in total knee arthroplasty. However, the long‐term functional outcomes and survivorship are unclear. For this study, it was hypothesized that mechanical axis alignment of lower limb, post‐operative joint line restoration, femoral and tibial component alignment is more accurate with the new handheld semi‐active robotic‐assisted TKA. MethodFrom April‐2019 to March‐2020, 60 patients with unilateral knee osteoarthritis who underwent total knee arthroplasties were included in this prospective randomised controlled study. Computer generated randomization was used. Study included 48 female patients and 12 male patients. Pre‐operative and post‐operative radiographic measurements were done and compared between the two groups. ResultsThere was a significant difference between two groups with respect to mechanical axis deviation, joint line deviation and coronal alignment of femoral and tibial prosthesis. Mechanical axis deviation > 3° was seen in eight cases (28.5%) in C‐TKA group compared to one case (3.1%) in RA‐TKA (p 0.019). Joint line deviation of 3.5 mm was noted in C‐TKA group as compared to 0.9 mm in RA‐TKA group (p < 0.001) which was statistically significant. However, whether this difference of 2.6 mm of joint line elevation between C‐TKA and RA‐TKA leads to any difference in clinical outcome in terms of knee kinematics and knee flexion needs to be investigated with further studies. Clinically restoring normal joint line is important for improved knee function after primary TKA. No significant difference was noted in femoral component rotation on post‐operative computed tomography (CT) scan. ConclusionThe novel imageless, handheld semi‐autonomous robotic system for TKA is highly accurate with respect to component positioning in coronal plane and mechanical alignment as compared to conventional TKA. Joint line is elevated in conventional TKA but is accurately restored using the robotic‐assisted TKA which may lead to better patellofemoral kinematics. Level of evidenceI.

show abstract