Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32190572›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2020

Implant placement accuracy in total knee arthroplasty: validation of a CT-based measurement technique.

Valentina Campanelli, Rocio Lozano, Hosna Akhlaghpour, Abheetinder S Brar, David Maislin, Alexander J Nedopil, Joel Zuhars

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Active robotic technologies for total knee arthroplasty.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2021
    Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Valentina CampanelliTHINK Surgical, Inc., Fremont, CA, USA.
Rocio LozanoTHINK Surgical, Inc., Fremont, CA, USA.
Hosna AkhlaghpourTHINK Surgical, Inc., Fremont, CA, USA.
Abheetinder S BrarTHINK Surgical, Inc., Fremont, CA, USA.
David MaislinBiomedical Statistical Consulting, Wynnewood, PA, USA.
Alexander J NedopilDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Joel ZuharsTHINK Surgical, Inc., Fremont, CA, USA.
Think Surgical (United States) · USMusculoskeletal Clinical Regulatory Advisers (United States) · USUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe primary goal of many computer-assisted surgical systems like robotics for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is to accurately execute a preoperative plan. To assess whether the preoperative plan was executed accurately in 3D, one option is to compare the planned and postoperative implant placement using a preoperative and postoperative CT scan of the patient's limb. This comparison requires a 3D-to-3D surface registration between the preoperative and postoperative 3D bone models and between the planned and postoperative 3D implants. Hence, the present study aimed at validating this measurement technique by determining (I) the anatomical regions that result in the lowest 6-degree of freedom (DoF) errors for 3D-to-3D surface registration of bone models, (II) the 6-DoF errors for 3D-to-3D surface registration of the implant models, and (III) the 6-DoF of the complete measurement technique.

methodsFour different regions of the femur were tested to determine which one would result in the most accurate 3D-to-3D registration of the bone models using 12 cadaveric lower limb specimens. Next, total knee arthroplasties were performed on six specimens, and the accuracy of the 3D-to-3D implant registration was evaluated against a gold standard registration performed using fiducial markers.

resultsThe most accurate 3D-to-3D bone registration was obtained when using the largest anatomical regions available after TKA, being the full 3D femur model or the femur model without the distal femur which resulted in root mean square errors within 0.2 mm for translations and 0.2° for rotation. The accuracy of the 3D-to-3D femoral and tibial implant registration was within 0.7 mm for translations and 0.4°-0.6° for rotations, respectively. The accuracy for the overall procedure was within 0.9 mm and 0.6° for both femur and tibia when using femoral regions resulting in accurate 3D-to-3D bone registration.

conclusionsIn conclusion, this measurement technique can be used in applications where measurement errors up to 0.9 mm in translations and up to 0.6° in rotations in component placement are acceptable.

Indexed as

Active roboticsimplant placement accuracykneetotal knee arthroplasty (TKA)validation

Identifiers

PMID32190572
PMCPMC7063276
OpenAlexW2998973623

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.