http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
( Osamu Tanifuji ),( Tomoharu Mochizuki ),( Hiroshi Yamagiwa ),( Takashi Sato ),( Satoshi Watanabe ),( Hiroki Hijikata ),( Hiroyuki Kawashima ) 대한슬관절학회 2021 대한슬관절학회지 Vol.33 No.-
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the post-operative three-dimensional (3D) femoral and tibial component positions in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) by the same co-ordinates’ system as for pre-operative planning and to compare it with a two-dimensional (2D) evaluation. Materials and methods: Sixty-five primary TKAs due to osteoarthritis were included. A computed tomography (CT) scan of the femur and tibia was obtained and pre-operative 3D planning was performed. Then, 3D and 2D postoperative evaluations of the component positions were performed. KneeCAS (LEXI, Inc., Tokyo, Japan), a lowerextremity alignment assessment system, was used for the 3D post-operative evaluation. Standard short-knee radiographs were used for the 2D post-operative evaluation. Differences between the pre-operative planning and post-operative coronal and sagittal alignment of components were investigated and compared with the results of the 3D and 2D evaluations. Results: According to the 3D evaluation, the difference between the pre-operative planning and actual postoperative sagittal alignment of the femoral component and the coronal and sagittal alignments of the tibial component were 2.6° ± 1.8°, 2.2° ± 1.8° and 3.2° ± 2.4°, respectively. Using the 2D evaluation, they were 1.9° ± 1.5°, 1.3° ± 1.2° and 1.8° ± 1.4°, making the difference in 3D evaluation significantly higher (p = 0.013, = 0.003 and < 0.001). For the sagittal alignment of the femoral component and the coronal and sagittal alignment of the tibial component, the outlier ( > ± 3°) ratio for the 3D evaluation was also significantly higher than that of the 2D evaluation (p < 0.001, = 0.009 and < 0.001). Conclusions: The difference between the pre-operative planning and post-operative component alignment in the 3D evaluation is significantly higher than that of the 2D, even if the same cases have been evaluated. Twodimensional evaluation may mask or underestimate the post-operative implant malposition. Three-dimensional evaluation using the same co-ordinates’ system as for pre-operative planning is necessary to accurately evaluate the post-operative component position.