» Articles » PMID: 28271370

Inadequacy of Computed Tomography for Pre-operative Planning of Patellofemoral Arthroplasty

Overview
Publisher Wiley
Date 2017 Mar 9
PMID 28271370
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of preoperative planning for patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) by comparing: (1) virtual implant positioning simulated on pre-operative images versus (2) real implant positioning from post-operative images.

Methods: The authors prospectively studied 15 patients that received a PFJ implant (Tornier, Montbonnot France). A pre-operative planning software was established to determine the size and position of the trochlear component. Pre-operative scans were used to perform virtual implantations by two different operators, which were then compared to the post-operative scans to calculate errors (ε) in implant positioning and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) for intra- and inter-observer repeatability.

Results: Analysis was performed for 13 patients, for whom agreement between virtual and real surgery was excellent for anteroposterior (AP) position (ICC = 0.84; ε = 3.5 mm), fair for proximodistal (PD) position (ICC = 0.50; ε  = 9.5 mm), and poor for mediolateral (ML) position (ICC = 0.07; ε = 9.0 mm). It was fair for flexum-recurvatum (FR) alignment (ICC = 0.53; ε = 8.2°), poor for varus-valgus (VV) alignment (ICC = 0.34; ε = 10.0°), and internal-external (IE) rotation (ICC = 0.34; ε = 10.6°).

Conclusions: Pre-operative planning was insufficiently accurate to follow intra-operatively, the greatest errors being angular alignment (VV and FR). The clinical relevance of these findings is that PFA is difficult to plan pre/operatively due to non-visibility of cartilage on CT scans and to trochlear dysplasia in most cases.

Level Of Evidence: Prospective evaluation of operative tools on consecutive patients, Level III.

Citing Articles

Assessment of preoperative planning and intraoperative accuracy of the AIKNEE system for total knee arthroplasty.

Lan S, Li J BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2024; 25(1):562.

PMID: 39030596 PMC: 11264798. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-024-07645-1.


Insufficient evidence to confirm benefits of custom partial knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.

Demey G, Muller J, Liebensteiner M, Pilot P, Nover L, Kort N Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021; 30(12):3968-3982.

PMID: 34792611 DOI: 10.1007/s00167-021-06766-7.


The Present Situation of Patellofemoral Arthroplasty in the Management of Solitary Patellofemoral Osteoarthritis.

Rodriguez-Merchan E Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2020; 8(3):325-331.

PMID: 32766389 PMC: 7358247. DOI: 10.22038/ABJS.2019.14125.


Early outcomes of an anatomic trochlear-cutting patellofemoral arthroplasty: patient selection is key.

Dejour D, Saffarini M, Malemo Y, Pungitore M, Valluy J, Nover L Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019; 27(7):2297-2302.

PMID: 30721343 DOI: 10.1007/s00167-019-05368-8.

References
1.
Burnett R, Barrack R . Computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty is currently of no proven clinical benefit: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012; 471(1):264-76. PMC: 3528921. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-012-2528-8. View

2.
Clark D, Upadhyay N, Gillespie G, Wakeley C, Eldridge J . The correct rotation of the femoral component in patellofemoral replacement: a laboratory assessment of a surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012; 94(12):1637-40. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.94B12.29506. View

3.
Turktas U, Piskin A, Poehling G . Short-term outcomes of robotically assisted patello-femoral arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2015; 40(5):919-24. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-015-2786-7. View

4.
Saggin P, Saggin J, Dejour D . Imaging in patellofemoral instability: an abnormality-based approach. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2012; 20(3):145-51. DOI: 10.1097/JSA.0b013e3182553cfe. View

5.
Lustig S . Patellofemoral arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014; 100(1 Suppl):S35-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2013.06.013. View