Abstract：Objective To explore the feasibility and accuracy of the Individualized Custom Femoral Cutting Guides in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty(UKA) of femoral specimens, and provide an experimental basis for clinical application.Methods From January 2016 to February 2017, 40 adult femoral specimens were selected from the Department of anatomy, affiliated medical university of Fudan University. There were 22 males and 18 females. The age was 35-78 years and the height was 152-178 cm. The digital table method was randomly divided into the trial group(individualized custom femoral cutting guides group, 20 femurs)and the control group(20 femurs). The trial group used individualized custom femoral cutting guides assisted UKA surgery, CT was performed preoperatively for data collection, and then design a cutting guide with 3D reverse technology, then 3D printing technology was used to produce individualized custom femoral cutting guide. At last, the surgery navigation templates were applied in the personalized UKA. In the control group, conventional fixation osteotomy was used in UKA. The operation was performed in the same group of medical groups. The two groups were compared in terms of osteotomy time and alignment of the lower limb.Results In the trial group, the navigation templates all contacted closely the bony structures of femoral condyle with no displacement. The osteotomy time were (3.31±0.56) min the trial group and (4.45±0.74) min in the control group, respectively (t=-5.500, P<0.01).The postoperative femoral component valgus/varus angle (FCVA) were 1.31°±0.86° in the trial group and 2.84°±1.58° in the control group, respectively (t=-3.789, P<0.01) . Correspondingly, the femoral component posterior slope angle (FCPSA) were 8.84°±0.60° and 6.25°±1.96°, respectively (t=5.661, P<0.01) . There was significant difference between the two groups, the postoperative tibial component valgus/varus angle and tibial component posterior slope angle in the trial group were closer to 0° and 10° , respectively, which indicated the position of femoral prosthesis was more precise.Conclusions The individualized custom femoral cutting guides does improve the accuracy of femoral prosthesis position in UKA and saving time.
蔡俊丰, 马敏, 曾文, 罗树林, 袁锋, 周炜, 杨硕, 王瀚, 尹峰. 个性化定制股骨截骨导板在单髁置换中精确性的实验研究[J]. 中华解剖与临床杂志, 2017, 22(5): 373-377.
Cai Junfeng, Ma Min, Zeng Wen, Luo Shuling, Yuan Feng, Zhou Wei, Yang Shuo, Wang Han, Yin Feng.. Accuracy of individualized custom femoral cutting guides in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty of femoral specimens. Chinese Journal of Anatomy and Clinics, 2017, 22(5): 373-377.
Bruni D, Gagliardi M, Akkawi I, et al. Good survivorship of all-polyethylene tibial component UKA at long-term follow-up[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2016, 24(1): 182-187. DOI:10.1007/s00167-014-3361-2.
[2]
Lustig S, Lording T, Frank F, et al. Progression of medial osteoarthritis and long term results of lateral unicompartmental arthroplasty: 10 to 18 year follow-up of 54 consecutive implants[J]. Knee, 2014, 21(Suppl 1): S26-S32. DOI:10.1016/S0968-0160(14)50006-3.
[3]
Koskinen E, Paavolainen P, Eskelinen A, et al. Unicondylar knee replacement for primary osteoarthritis: a prospective follow-up study of 1, 819 patients from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register[J]. Acta Orthop, 2007, 78(1): 128-135. DOI:10.1080/17453670610013538.
[4]
W-Dahl A, Robertsson O, Lidgren L, et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients aged less than 65[J]. Acta Orthop, 2010, 81(1): 90-94. DOI:10.3109/17453671003587150.
[5]
Lewold S, Robertsson O, Knutson K, et al. Revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: outcome in 1, 135 cases from the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty study[J]. Acta Orthop Scand, 1998, 69(5): 469-474. DOI:10.3109/17453679808997780.
[6]
Jenny JY, Boeri C. Unicompartmental knee prosthesis implantation with a non-image-based navigation system: rationale, technique, case-control comparative study with a conventional instrumented implantation[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2003, 11(1): 40-45. DOI:10.1007/s00167-002-0333-8.
[7]
Ma B, Long W, Rudan JF, et al. Three-dimensional analysis of alignment error in using femoral intramedullary guides in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty[J]. J Arthroplasty, 2006, 21(2): 271-278. DOI:10.1016/j.arth.2004.07.012.
[8]
Baldini A, Adravanti P. Less invasive TKA: extramedullary femoral reference without navigation[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2008, 466(11): 2694-2700. DOI:10.1007/s11999-008-0435-9.
[9]
Hafez MA, Chelule KL, Seedhom BB, et al. Computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty using patient-specific templating[J]. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 2006, 443: 184-192. DOI:10.1097/01.blo.0000201148.06454.ef.
[10]
Ng VY, DeClaire JH, Berend KR, et al. Improved accuracy of alignment with patient-specific positioningguides compared with manual instrumentation in TKA[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2012, 470(1): 99-107. DOI:10.1007/s11999-011-1996-6.
[11]
Anderl W, Pauzenberger L, Klblinger R, et al. Patient-specific instrumentation improved mechanical alignment, while early clinical outcome was comparable to conventional instrumentation in TKA[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2016, 24(1): 102-111. DOI:10.1007/s00167-014-3345-2.
[12]
Noble JW Jr, Moore CA, Liu N. The value of patient-matched instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty[J]. J Arthroplasty, 2012, 27(1): 153-155. DOI:10.1016/j.arth.2011.07.006.
[13]
Ng VY, DeClaire JH, Berend KR, et al. Improved accuracy of alignment with patient-specificpositioning guides compared with manual instrumentation in TKA[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2011, 470(1): 99-107. DOI:10.1007/s11999-011-1996-6.
[14]
Spencer BA, Mont MA, McGrath MS, et al. Initial experience with custom-fit total knee replacement: intra-operative events and long-leg coronal alignment[J]. Int Orthop, 2009, 33(6): 1571-1575. DOI:10.1007/s00264-008-0693-x.
Klatt BA, Goyal N, Austin MS, et al. Custom-fit total knee arthroplasty (OtisKnee) results in malalignment[J]. J Arthroplasty, 2008, 23(1): 26-29. DOI:10.1016/j.arth.2007.10.001.
[17]
Nunley RM, Ellison BS, Ruh EL, et al. Are patient-specific cutting blocks cost-effective for total knee arthroplasty[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2012, 470(3): 889-894. DOI:10.1007/s11999-011-2221-3.
[18]
Seeber GH, Kolbow K, Maus U, et al. Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using patient-specific instrumentation-accuracy of preoperative planning, time saving and cost efficiency[J]. Z Orthop Unfall, 2016, 154(3): 287-293. DOI:10.1055/s-0042-101559.
[19]
Dao Trong ML, Diezi C, Goerres G, et al. Improved positioning of the tibial component in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with patient-specific cutting blocks[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2015, 23(7): 1993-1998. DOI:10.1007/s00167-014-2839-2.
[20]
van Leeuwen JAMJ, Rhrl SM. Patient-specific positioning guides do not consistently achieve the planned implant position in UKA[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2017, 25(3): 752-758. DOI:10.1007/s00167-016-4268-x.
[21]
Kerens B, Schotanus MG, Boonen B, et al. No radiographic difference between patient-specific guiding and conventional Oxford UKA surgery[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2015, 23(5): 1324-1329. DOI:10.1007/s00167-014-2849-0.
[22]
Heyse TJ, Lipman JD, Imhauser CW, et al. Accuracy of individualized custom tibial cutting guides in UKA[J]. HSS J, 2014, 10(3): 260-265. DOI:10.1007/s11420-014-9410-z.
2017, Vol. 22 
