Published online Aug 31, 2011.
https://doi.org/10.4055/jkoa.2011.46.4.320
Accuracy of Inter Femoral Head Center Distance Measurement and Evaluation for Coronal Alignment of Femoral Component during Total Knee Arthroplasty
Abstract
Purpose
Alignment is an important factor in the long-term success of total knee arthroplasty. In the total knee arthroplasty, the conventional extramedullary femoral alignment system has significant error in femoral coronal alignment, since it is difficult to find the femoral head center and it is time consuming to determine during the operation. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the accuracy of the newly-designed marker system for extramedullary femoral alignment that uses radiologic distance between the 2 femoral head centers.
Materials and Methods
Between July 2008 and July 2009, 90 patients (100 knees) with knee osteoarthritis underwent total knee arthroplasty using the femoral extramedullary femoral guide system. We measured the distance between the femoral head centers using the radiologic picture archiving and communication system (PACS, General Electric, Milwaukee, WI) system preoperatively, then plastic rods and metal pegs were used to simulate the inter femoral head center distance. By placing the center of the plastic rod after marking the inter femoral head center distance on the central body line, we could trace the coronal mechanical axis. We measured the angle between the femoral mechanical axis and the femoral component in standing long leg antero-posterior radiograph to assess radiologically the accuracy of coronal alignment postoperatively.
Results
The average femoral length in the study group was 402.5±16.2 mm. The mean distance between the femoral head and the center of the marker was 49.6±17.9 mm. The average error in estimation of the distance between the femoral head center and the metal peg of the marker was 3.78±3.14 mm. The positional error in alignment was 1° or less in 90% and 2° or less in 100% of knees. The average angle of femoral component to femoral mechanical axis was 89.9±1.5° (range 84.4-93.6°). The coronal alignment of the femoral components was within 90°±3° in -96% of cases.
Conclusion
Our results suggest that the clinical method reported here is a simple and reliable method to localize the center of the femoral head during total knee arthroplasty.
Figure 1
(A) 100mm X-Ray Magnification Maker (B) X-ray shows calculation of the interfemoral head center distance. (C) The Mechanical Axis Marker is placed on the body center.
Figure 2
The Mechanical Axis Marker: the plastic rod and metal pegs were used to simulate the inter femoral head center distance.
Figure 3
A radiograph was taken after positioning of the patient before surgery. We measured horizontal distance from the peg to the perpendicular extending line through the line of the femoral head center.
Figure 4
Radiograph showing the mechanical axis in the coronal plane. The alignment of the coronal femoral components was measured by the intersection of a line drawn across the base of each component and the mechanical axis. FFA, frontal femoral angle.
Figure 5
Drawing shows the acceptable range of error in Mechanical Axis Marker placement.
Table 1
Demographic Data
References
-
Andriacchi TP. Biomechanics and gait analysis in total knee replacement. Orthop Rev 1988;17:470–473.
-
-
Laskin RS. Total knee arthroplasty using an uncemented, polyethylene tibial implant. A seven-year follow-up study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1993;(288):270–276.
-
-
Matsuda S, Miura H, Nagamine R, et al. Posterior tibial slope in the normal and varus knee. Am J Knee Surg 1999;12:165–168.
-
-
Brys DA, Lombardi AV Jr, Mallory TH, Vaughn BK. A comparison of intramedullary and extramedullary alignment systems for tibial component placement in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1991;(263):175–179.
-
-
Bargren JH, Blaha JD, Freeman MA. Alignment in total knee arthroplasty. Correlated biomechanical and clinical observations. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1983;(173):178–183.
-
-
Lotke PA, Ecker ML. Influence of positioning of prosthesis in total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1977;59:77–79.
-
-
Rand JA, Coventry MB. Ten-year evaluation of geometric total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988;(232):168–173.
-
-
Cates HE, Ritter MA, Keating EM, Faris PM. Intramedullary versus extramedullary femoral alignment systems in total knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1993;(286):32–39.
-
-
Seo JG, Moon YW, Kim YS. A comparison of extramedullary and intramedullary femoral component alignment guide systems in TKA. J Korean Knee Soc 2006;18:47–54.
-