• Antonio Klasan, Sven Edward Putnis, Samuel Grasso, Thomas Neri, and Myles Raphael Coolican.
• Sydney Orthopaedic Research Institute, 445 Victoria Ave, Chatswood, 2067, Australia. klasan.antonio@me.com.
• Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2020 Jun 1; 140 (6): 801-806.

IntroductionThe most commonly used tool for implant positioning are conventional instruments (CI) followed by computer-assisted surgery (CAS). A number of studies have investigated the cutting error of the tibial component when CAS is used, but most of them were focused on the cutting angles. The accuracy of CAS to determine the depth of the cut has not received much attention, even though implications are similar or worse, than with an angle mismatch.Materials And MethodsThis was an ethics board approved, prospective study of 23 consecutive varus TKAs by a single surgeon. Implant positioning was performed using CAS; however, the depth of the tibial cut was determined with both CAS and CI. Targeted alignment was the mechanical axis and 3° of posterior slope. The planned and the achieved cut, as determined by CAS needed to match. The achieved cut was then measured using a caliper and compared to the depth of the cut as per CAS. Medial and lateral cuts were analyzed separately. Analysis of variance and Bland-Altman plots were used for the comparison.ResultsMean medial navigated cut was 6.3 (± 2.2) mm, mean measured medial cut was 6.6 (± 2.3) mm. Mean lateral navigated cut was 8.9 (± 1.8) mm, mean measured lateral cut was 8.8 (± 1.5) mm. There was a statistical significance for both the medial (p < 0.001) and the lateral (p = 0.004) navigated and measured cuts.ConclusionsThe results of this study suggest that the tibial cut depth, measured by the navigation, does not match the actual bony cuts performed, even if a perfect cut was achieved in both sagittal and coronal plane. Surgeons should be aware of the measurement error in the navigation system and potentially add an additional step for verifying the achieved depth of the cut.

18 keywords...

hide…