Top

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

Published in:

01-11-2016 | Knee

How to assess femoral and tibial component rotation after total knee arthroplasty with computed tomography: a systematic review

Authors: Eduard J. De Valk, Julia C. A. Noorduyn, Eduard L. A. R. Mutsaerts

Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 11/2016

Abstract

Purpose

One of the most important factors leading to revision of total knee arthroplasties (TKA) is malrotation of femoral and/or tibial component. Rotation measurements performed on radiographs are limited and less reliable compared to 2D computed tomography (CT). Nowadays, 2D-CT and 3D-CT can be distinguished in measuring rotation of the TKA components. The aim of this systematic review is to determine the most reliable CT techniques in measuring rotation of the TKA components and to investigate possible cut-off points that can be used in the clinician’s decision for a possible revision of the TKA.

Methods

A search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science was performed up to April 2015. Final selections of 12 articles were used in this systematic review.

Results

3D-CT, compared to 2D-CT, is more reliable and shows a high level of intra- and interobserver reliability. Femoral component rotation is measured using the component’s posterior condylar line or inner pegs in relation to the epicondylar axis. Five different techniques were used to measure tibial component rotation. The posterior border of the tibial component in relationship to the geometric centre and tibial tubercle was most frequently used.

Conclusion

This systematic review shows a strong preference for 3D-CT to determine the component’s rotation following a TKA. The literature shows consensus on the reference points of the femoral component. In measurements of the tibial component, various techniques are used with similar results. No clear cut-off point for revision of malrotated TKA components can be stated because of limited evidence.

Level of evidence

III.

Bäthis H, Perlick L, Tingart M et al (2004) Alignment in total knee arthroplasty: a comparison of computer-assisted surgery with the conventional technique. J Bone Jt Surg 86-B:682–687CrossRef

Bédard M, Vince KG, Redfern J et al (2011) Internal rotation of the tibial component is frequent in stiff total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(8):2346–2355CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bell SW, Young P, Drury C et al (2014) Component rotational alignment in unexplained painful primary total knee arthroplasty. Knee 21:272–277CrossRefPubMed

Berger RA, Crossett LS, Jacobs JJ et al (1998) Malrotation causing patellofemoral complications after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 356:144–153CrossRef

Berger RA, Rubash HE (2001) Rotational instability and malrotation after total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 32(4):639–647CrossRefPubMed

Berger RA, Rubash HE, Seel MJ et al (1993) Determining the rotational alignment of the femoral component in total knee arthroplasty using the epicondylar axis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 286(1):40–47

Berger RA, Seel MJ, Schleiden M (1993) Computerized tomographic determination of the normal tibiofemoral rotational angle: a guide to tibial component alignment in TKA. Orthop Trans 17:1174

Berger RA, Seel MJ, Schleiden M (1993) Determination of femoral component rotation in total knee arthroplasty using computer tomography. Orthop Trans 17:427

Boisgard S, Moreau PE, Descamps S et al (2003) Computed tomographic study of the posterior condylar angle in arthritic knees: its use in the rotational positioning of the femoral implant of total knee prostheses. Surg Radiol Anat 25(3–4):330–334CrossRefPubMed

10.

Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM et al (2010) Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not? Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(1):57–63CrossRefPubMed

11.

Buck FM, Guggenberger R, Koch PP et al (2003) Femoral and tibial torsion measurements with 3D models based on low-dose biplanar radiographs in comparison with standard CT measurements. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199(5):W607–W612CrossRef

12.

Ewald FC (1989) The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:9–12

13.

Fosco M, Rimondi E, Amendola L et al (2010) Revision of knee prostheses with components malrotation: treatment algorithm using a computed tomographic analysis. Eur Orthop Traumatol 1:61–68CrossRef

14.

Griffin FM, Insall JN, Scuderi GR (1998) The posterior condylar angle in osteoarthritic knees. J Arhtroplasty 13(7):812–815CrossRef

15.

Griffin FM, Math K, Scuderi GR et al (2000) Anatomy of the epicondyles of the distal femur: MRI analysis of normal knees. J Arhtroplasty 15(3):354–359CrossRef

16.

Harvie P, Larkin J, Scaddan M et al (2013) Stiffness after total knee arthroplasty: does component alignment differ in knees requiring manipulation? J Arhtroplasty 28(1):14–19CrossRef

17.

Henckel J, Richards R, Lozhkin K et al (2006) Very low-dose computed tomography for planning and outcome measurement in knee replacement. The imperial knee protocol. J Bone Jt Surg 88:1513–1518CrossRef

18.

Hirschmann MT, Iranpour F, Konala P et al (2010) A novel standardized algorith for evaluating patients with painful total knee arthroplasty using combined single photon emission tomography and conventional computerized tomography. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:939–944CrossRefPubMed

19.

Hirschmann MT, Konala P, Amsler F et al (2011) The position and orientation of total knee replacement components: A comparison of conventional radiographs, transverse 2D-CT slices and 3D-CT reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg 93-B(5):629–633CrossRef

20.

Jazrawi LM, Birdzell L, Kummer FJ et al (2000) The accuracy of computed tomography for determining femoral and tibial total knee artroplasty component rotation. J Arhtroplasty 15(6):761–766CrossRef

21.

Kanekasu K, Kondo M, Kadoya Y (2005) Axial radiograph of the distal femur to assess rotational alignment in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 434:193–197CrossRef

22.

Kim YH, Park JW, Kim JS et al (2014) The relationship between the survival of total knee arthroplasty and postoperative coronal, sagittal and rotational alignment of knee prosthesis. Int Orthop 38:379–385CrossRefPubMed

23.

Konigsberg B, Hess R, Hartman C et al (2014) Inter- and intraobserver reliability of two-dimensional CT scan for total knee arthroplasty component malrotation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472(1):212–217CrossRefPubMed

24.

Lakstein D, Zarrabian M, Kosashvili Y et al (2010) Revision total knee arthroplasty for component malrotation is highly beneficial: a case control study. J Arthroplasty 25(7):1047–1052CrossRefPubMed

25.

Longstaff LM, Sloan K, Stamp N et al (2009) Good alignment after total knee arthroplasty leads to faster rehabilitation and better function. J Arhtroplasty 24(4):570–578CrossRef

26.

Lützner J, Krummenauer F, Wolf C et al (2008) Computer-assisted and conventional total knee replacement. A comparative, prospective, randomised study with radiological and ct evaluation. J Bone Jt Surg 90-B(8):1039–1044CrossRef

27.

National Institutes of Health—Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies, 2014

28.

OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group. The Oxford levels of evidence 2. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. http://www.cebm.net/ocebm-levels-of-evidence/

29.

Rasch H, Falkowski AL, Forrer F et al (2013) 4D-SPECT/CT in orthopaedics: a new method of combined quantitative volumetric 3D analysis of SPECT/CT tracer uptake and component position measurements in patients after total knee arthroplasty. Skeletal Radiol 42:1215–1223CrossRefPubMed

30.

Roper GE, Bloemke AD, Roberts CC et al (2013) Analysis of tibial component rotation following total knee arthroplasty using 3D high definition computed tomography. J Arhtroplasty 28(8 Suppl):106–111CrossRef

31.

Scott CE, Howie CR, MacDonald D et al (2010) Predicting dissatisfaction following total knee replacement. J Bone Jt Surg 92:1253–1258CrossRef

32.

Sharkley PF, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH et al (2002) Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today? Clin Orthop Relat Res 404:7–13CrossRef

33.

Skyttä ET, Lohman M, Tallroth K et al (2009) Comparison of standard anteroposterior knee and hip-to-ankle radiographs in determining the lower limb and implant alignment after total knee arthroplasty. Scand J Surg 98:250–253PubMed

34.

Sternheim A, Lochab J, Drexler M et al (2012) The benefit of revision knee arthroplasty for component malrotation after primary total knee replacement. Int Orthop 36(12):2473–2478CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Valkering KP, Breugem SJ, van den Bekerom MP et al (2015) Effect of rotational alignment on outcome of total knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 86(4):432–439CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Vanbiervliet J, Bellemans J, Verlinden C et al (2011) The influence of malrotation and femoral component material on patellofemoral wear during gait. J Bone Joint Surg 93-B(10):1348–1354CrossRef

37.

Yan M, Wang J, Wang Y et al (2014) Gender-based differences in the dimensions of the femoral trochlea and condyles in the Chinese population: correlation to the risk of femoral component overhang. Knee 21(1):252–256CrossRefPubMed

Title: How to assess femoral and tibial component rotation after total knee arthroplasty with computed tomography: a systematic review
Authors: Eduard J. De Valk
Julia C. A. Noorduyn
Eduard L. A. R. Mutsaerts
Publication date: 01-11-2016
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Issue 11/2016
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4325-5

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

How to assess femoral and tibial component rotation after total knee arthroplasty with computed tomography: a systematic review

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Level of evidence

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Level of evidence

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 11/2016

Surgical accuracy in high tibial osteotomy: coronal equivalence of computer navigation and gap measurement

Quantification of the pivot-shift test using a navigation system with non-invasive surface markers

Computer-assisted navigation decreases the change in the tibial posterior slope angle after closed-wedge high tibial osteotomy

Technical variables of ACL surgical reconstruction: effect on post-operative static laxity and clinical implication

Does meniscus removal affect ACL-deficient knee laxity? An in vivo study

Usefulness of long tibial axis to measure medial tibial slope for opening wedge high tibial osteotomy