Restoration of the Mechanical Axis in Total Knee Artrhoplasty Using Patient-Matched Technology Cutting Blocks. A Retrospective Study of 132 Cases

Document Type : RESEARCH PAPER


1 Minimal Invasive Hip and Knee Fellow, Sky Ridge Medical Center, 10101 Ridgegate, Lone Tree, Colorado, USA

2 Orthopedic and Trauma Surgeon, Sky Ridge Medical Center, 10101 Ridgegate, Lone Tree, Colorado, USA


Background: The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of bone cuts and the resultant alignment, using the
MyKnee patient specific cutting blocks.
Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 132 patients undergoing primary TKR for osteoarthritis by one single surgeon.
The operative time, the preoperative Hip-Knee-Ankle (HKA) axis based on the CT-scan, the postoperative HKA axis
based on long axis standing x-rays, the planned and the actual size of the femoral and the tibial components, and the
number of the recuts which has been made intraoperative were measured.
Results: The average preoperative HKA axis was 177.50 (range 163.50 to 1940), whereas the average postoperative
HKA axis was 179.40 (range 177.10 to 182.70). No outliers were reported in the study (0%). Intraoperatively, 4 femoral
components (3.03%), and 7 tibial components (5.30%) applied to the patients were different than the planned size.
There was no need of recuts in any of our cases intraoperatively.
Conclusion: The MyKnee system evaluated in this study was shown to be remarkable reliable in the coronal plane
alignment, and the prediction of the component size. However, further studies are needed to determine whether there
are any clinically important improvements in outcomes or patient satisfaction when using patient-specific cutting blocks
for TKA.


Main Subjects

1. Barke S, Musanhu E, Busch C, Stafford G, Field R.
Patient -matched total knee arthroplasty: does it
offer any clinical advantages? Acta Orthop Belg.
2013; 79(3):307-11.
2. Rodricks DJ, Patil S, Pulido P, Colwell CW Jr. Press-fit
condylar design total knee arthroplasty. Fourteen
to seventeen year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
2007; 89(1):89-95.
3. Vessely MB, Whaley AL, Harmsen WS, Schleck CD,
Berry DJ. The Chitranjan Ranawat Award: long term
survivorship and failure modes of 1000 cemented
condylar total knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat
Res. 2006; 452(11):28-34.
4. Kim SJ, MacDonald M, Hernandez J, Wixson RL.
Computer assisted navigation in total knee arthroplasty:
improved coronal alignment. J Arthroplasty. 2005;
20(7 Suppl 3):123-31.
5. Jeffery RS, Morris RW, Denham RA. Coronal alignment
after total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br.
1991; 73(5):709-14.
6. Ritter MA, Faris PM, Keating EM, Meding JB.
Postoperative alignment of total knee replacement.
Its effect on survival. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;
7. Hetaimish BM, Khan MM, Simunovic N, Al-Harbi HH,
Bhandari M, Zalzal PK. Meta-analysis of navigation vs
conventional total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty.
2012; 27(6):1177-82.
8. Mason JB, Fehring TK, Estok R, Banel D, Fahrbach
K. Meta-analysis of alignment outcomes in
computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty surgery. J
Arthroplasty. 2007; 22(8):1097-106.
9. Lustig S, Fleury C, Goy D, Neyret P, Donell ST. The
accuracy of acquisition of an imageless computerassisted
system and its implication for knee
arthroplasty. Knee. 2011; 18(1):15-20.
10. Harvie P, Sloan K, Beaver RJ. Computer navigation
vs conventional total knee arthroplasty five-year
functional results of a prospective randomized trial. J
Arthroplasty. 2012; 27(5):667-72.
11. Spencer JM, Chauhan SK, Sloan K, Taylor A, Beaver RJ.
Computer navigation versus conventional total knee
replacement: no difference in functional results at
two years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007; 89(4):477-80.
12. Lombardi AV Jr, Berend KR, Adams JB. Patient-specific
approach in total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics.
2008; 31(9):927-30.
13. Noble JW Jr, Moore CA, Liu N. The value of patient
matched instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty.
J Arthroplasty. 2012; 27(1):153-5.
14. Bathis H, Perlick L, Tingart M, Lüring C, Zurakowski
D, Grifka J. Alignment in total knee arthroplasty. A
comparison of computer-assisted surgery with the
conventional technique. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;
15. Rand JA, Coventry MB. Ten-year evaluation of
geometric total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 1988;
16. Howell SM, Howell SJ, Kuznik KT, Cohen J, Hull ML.
Does a kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty
restore function without failure regardless of
alignment category? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;
17. Bellemans J, Colyn W, Vandenneucker H, Victor J. The
Chitranjan Ranawat award: is neutral mechanical
alignment normal for all patients? The concept of
constitutional varus. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;
18. Blakeney WG, Khan RJ, Wall SJ. Computer-assisted
techniques versus conventional guides for
component alignment in total knee arthroplasty: a
randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
2011; 93(15):1377–84.
19. Brin YS, Nikolaou VS, Joseph L, Zukor DJ, Antoniou J.
Imageless computer assisted versus conventional
total knee replacement: a Bayesian meta-analysis of 23
comparative studies. Int Orthop. 2011; 35(3):331–9.
20. Nunley RM, Ellison BS, Ruh EL, Williams BM, Foreman
K, Ford AD, et al. Are patient-specific cutting blocks
cost effective for total knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop
Rel Res. 2012; 470(3):889-94.
21. Conteduca F, Iorio R, Mazza D, Caperna L, Bolle G,
Argento G, et al. Are MRI-based, patient matched
cutting jigs as accurate as the tibial guides? Int
Orthop. 2012; 36(8):1589-93.
22. Ng VY, DeClaire JH, Berend KR, Gulick BC, Lombardi
AV Jr. Improved accuracy of alignment with patientspecific
positioning guides compared with manual
instrumentation in TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;
23. Koch PP, Müller D, Pisan M, Fucentese SF. Radiographic
accuracy in TKA with a CT-based patient-specific
cutting block technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol
Arthrosc. 2013; 21(10):2200-5.
24. Anderl W, Pauzenberger L, Kölblinger R, Kiesselbach
G, Brandl G, Laky B, et al. Patient-specific
instrumentation improved mechanical alignment,
while early clinical outcome was comparable to
conventional instrumentation in TKA. Knee Surg
Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016; 24(1):102-11.
25. Bowers ME, Trinh N, Tung GA, Crisco JJ, Kimia
BB, Fleming BC. Quantitative MR imaging using
“LiveWire” to measure tibiofemoral articular
cartilage thickness. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2008;
26. Koo S, Giori NJ, Gold GE, Dyrby CO, Andriacchi TP.
Accuracy of 3D cartilage models generated from
MR images is dependent on cartilage thickness:
laser scanner based validation of in vivo cartilage. J
Biomech Eng. 2009; 131(12):121004.
Volume 5, Issue 5
September 2017
Pages 283-289
  • Receive Date: 02 February 2016
  • Revise Date: 31 December 2016
  • Accept Date: 08 March 2017
  • First Publish Date: 01 September 2017