Aims. The objective of this study is to assess the use of ultrasound (US) as a radiation-free imaging modality to reconstruct 3D anatomy of the knee for use in preoperative templating in knee arthroplasty. Methods. Using an US system, which is fitted with an electromagnetic (EM) tracker that is integrated into the US probe, allows 3D tracking of the probe, femur, and tibia. The raw US radiofrequency (RF) signals are acquired and, using real-time signal processing, bone boundaries are extracted. Bone boundaries and the tracking information are fused in a 3D point cloud for the femur and tibia. Using a statistical shaping model, the patient-specific surface is reconstructed by optimizing bone geometry to match the point clouds. An accuracy analysis was conducted for 17 cadavers by comparing the 3D US models with those created using CT. US scans from 15 users were compared in order to examine the effect of operator variability on the output. Results. The results revealed that the US bone models were accurate compared with the CT models (root mean squared error (RM)S: femur, 1.07 mm (SD 0.15); tibia, 1.02 mm (SD 0.13). Additionally, femoral landmarking proved to be accurate (transepicondylar axis: 1.07° (SD 0.65°); posterior condylar axis: 0.73° (SD 0.41°); distal condylar axis: 0.96° (SD 0.89°); medial anteroposterior (AP): 1.22 mm (SD 0.69); lateral AP: 1.21 mm (SD 1.02)). Tibial landmarking errors were slightly higher (posterior slope axis: 1.92° (SD 1.31°); and tubercle axis: 1.91° (SD 1.24°)). For implant sizing, 90% of the femora and 60% of the tibiae were sized correctly, while the remainder were only one size different from the required implant size. No difference was observed between moderate and skilled users. Conclusion. The 3D US bone models were proven to be closely matched compared with CT and suitable for preoperative planning. The 3D US is radiation-free and offers numerous clinical opportunities for bone visualization rapidly during clinic visits, to enable preoperative planning with implant sizing. There is potential to extend its application to 3D dynamic ligament balancing, and intraoperative registration for use with robots and navigation systems. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):81–86

Aims. The aim of this study was to compare the post-operative radiographic and clinical outcomes between kinematically and mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). . Patients and Methods. A total of 60 TKAs (30 kinematically and 30 mechanically aligned) were performed in 60 patients with varus osteoarthritis of the knee using a navigation system. The angles of orientation of the joint line in relation to the floor, the conventional and true mechanical axis (tMA) (the line from the centre of the hip to the lowest point of the calcaneus) were compared, one year post-operatively, on single-leg and double-leg standing long leg radiographs between the groups. The range of movement and 2011 Knee Society Scores were also compared between the groups at that time. Results. The angles of orientation of the joint line in the kinematic group changed from slight varus on double-leg standing to slight valgus with single-leg standing. The mechanical axes in the kinematic group passed through a neutral position of the knee in the true condition when the calcaneus was considered. The post-operative angles of flexion and functional activity scores were significantly better in the kinematic than in the mechanical group (p < 0.003 and 0.03, respectively). Conclusion. A kinematically aligned TKA results in a joint line which has a more parallel orientation in relation to the floor during single- and double-leg standing, and more neutral weight-bearing in tMA than a mechanically aligned TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:640–6

Aims

The surgical target for optimal implant positioning in robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty remains the subject of ongoing discussion. One of the proposed targets is to recreate the knee’s functional behaviour as per its pre-diseased state. The aim of this study was to optimize implant positioning, starting from mechanical alignment (MA), toward restoring the pre-diseased status, including ligament strain and kinematic patterns, in a patient population.