MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3184811987 · doi:10.52198/21.sti.39.os1462

Total Knee Arthroplasty in the Valgus Knee: Can New Operative Technologies Affect Surgical Technique and Outcomes?

2021· article· en· W3184811987 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert Marchand, Laura Scholl, Manoshi Bhowmik-Stoker, Kelly Taylor, Kevin Marchand, Zhongming Chen, Michael A. Mont

Bibliographic record

VenueSurgical Technology Online · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValgusMedicineWOMACOsteoarthritisCoronal planeRadiographyImplantArthroplastySoft tissueSurgical planningOrthodonticsSurgeryRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Valgus knee deformities can sometimes be challenging to address during total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). While appropriate surgical technique is often debated, the role of new operative technologies in addressing these complex cases has not been clearly established. The purpose of this study was to analyze the usefulness of computed tomography scan (CT)-based three-dimensional (3D) modeling operative technology in assisting with TKA planning, execution of bone cuts, and alignment. Specifically, we evaluated valgus TKAs performed using this CT-based technology for: (1) intraoperative implant plan, number of releases, and surgeon prediction of component size; (2) survivorship and clinical outcomes at a minimum follow up of one year; and (3) radiographic outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 152 patients who had valgus deformities receiving a CT-based TKA performed by a single surgeon were analyzed. Cases were performed using an enhanced preoperative planning and real-time intraoperative feedback and cutting tool. The surgeon predicted and recorded implant sizes preoperatively and all patients received implants with initial and final implant alignment, flexion/extension gaps, and full or partial soft tissue releases recorded. A modified Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS, JR.) scores were collected preoperatively and at approximately six months and one year postoperatively. Preoperative coronal alignment ranged from 1 to 13° valgus. Follow-up radiographs were also evaluated for alignments, loosenings, and/or progressive radiolucencies. RESULTS: A total of 96% of cases were corrected to within 3° of mechanical neutral. For outlier cases, initial deformities ranged from valgus 5 to 13°, with final alignment ranging from 4 to 8° valgus (mean 4° correction). Patients had mean femoral internal rotation of 2° and mean femoral flexion of 4°. The surgeon was within one size on the femur and tibia 94 and 100% of the time, respectively. Only one patient required a lateral soft tissue release and one patient had osteophytes removed, which required a medial soft tissue release. Five patients required manipulations under anesthesia. Aside from these, there were no postoperative medical and/or surgical complications and there was 100% survivorship at final follow up. WOMAC and KOOS, JR. scores improved significantly from a mean of 21 ± 9 and 48 ± 10 points preoperatively to 4 ± 6 (p<0.05) and 82 ± 15 (p<0.05) at final follow up, respectively. None of the cases exhibited progressive radiolucencies by final follow up. DISCUSSION: A limitation of this study was not evaluating dynamic kinematics in these patients to determine if rotation had any effects on kinematics. Future studies will evaluate this concern. Nevertheless, the technology successfully assisted with planning, executing bone cuts, and achieving alignment in TKAs complicated by the deformity. This may allow surgeons to predictably avoid soft tissue releases and accurately know component sizes preoperatively, while consistently achieving desired postoperative alignment. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the utility of CT-based 3D modeling techniques for challenging valgus deformity cases. Use of 3D modeling allowed the TKA components to be positioned according to the patient's anatomy in the coronal, transverse, and sagittal planes. When making these intraoperative implant adjustments, the surgeon may choose to place components outside the preoperative planning guidelines based on the clinical needs of the patient.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSurgical Technology OnlineSame topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesFrench-language works237,207