Search Results Heading

MBRLSearchResults

mbrl.module.common.modules.added.book.to.shelf
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
    Done
    Filters
    Reset
  • Discipline
      Discipline
      Clear All
      Discipline
  • Is Peer Reviewed
      Is Peer Reviewed
      Clear All
      Is Peer Reviewed
  • Item Type
      Item Type
      Clear All
      Item Type
  • Subject
      Subject
      Clear All
      Subject
  • Year
      Year
      Clear All
      From:
      -
      To:
  • More Filters
2 result(s) for "Griffiths-Jones, Will"
Sort by:
Arithmetic hip-knee-ankle angle and stressed hip-knee-ankle angle: equivalent methods for estimating constitutional lower limb alignment in kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty
Purpose Kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty (KA TKA) relies on precise determination of constitutional alignment to set resection targets. The arithmetic hip-knee-ankle angle (aHKA) is a radiographic method to estimate constitutional alignment following onset of arthritis. Intraoperatively, constitutional alignment may also be approximated using navigation-based angular measurements of deformity correction, termed the stressed HKA (sHKA). This study aimed to investigate the relationship between these methods of estimating constitutional alignment to better understand their utility in KA TKA. Methods A radiological and intraoperative computer-assisted navigation study was undertaken comparing measurements of the aHKA using radiographs and computed tomography (CT-aHKA) to the sHKA in 88 TKAs meeting the inclusion criteria. The primary outcome was the difference in the paired means between the three methods to determine constitutional alignment (aHKA, CT-aHKA, sHKA). Secondary outcomes included testing agreement across measurements using Bland-Altman plots and analysis of subgroup differences based on different patterns of compartmental arthritis. Results There were no statistically significant differences between any paired comparison or across groups (aHKA vs. sHKA: 0.1°, p  = 0.817; aHKA vs. CT-aHKA: 0.3°, p  = 0.643; CT-aHKA vs. sHKA: 0.2°, p  = 0.722; ANOVA, p  = 0.845). Bland-Altman plots were consistent with good agreement for all comparisons, with approximately 95% of values within limits of agreement. There was no difference in the three paired comparisons (aHKA, CT-aHKA, and sHKA) for knees with medial compartment arthritis. However, these findings were not replicated in knees with lateral compartment arthritis. Conclusions There was no significant difference between the arithmetic HKA (whether obtained using CT or radiographs) and the stressed HKA in this analysis. These findings further validate the preoperative arithmetic method and support use of the intraoperative stressed HKA as techniques to restore constitutional lower limb alignment in KA TKA. Level of evidence III.
The importance of joint line obliquity: a radiological analysis of restricted boundaries in normal knee phenotypes to inform surgical decision making in kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty
Purpose Restricted kinematic alignment (rKA) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) aims to restore native soft tissue laxities while limiting alignment extremes that risk prosthetic failure. However, there is no consensus where restricted boundaries (RB) should be set. This study aims to determine the proportion of limbs in which constitutional alignment and joint line obliquity (JLO) would be restored with various RB scenarios, to inform decision making in rKA TKA. Methods The mechanical hip–knee–ankle (mHKA) angle, arithmetic hip–knee–ankle (aHKA) angle, lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA) and medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) were measured on radiographs of 500 normal knees. Incrementally wider RBs were then applied. The proportion of limbs within each increment was determined when RBs were applied only to HKA, or to HKA, LDFA and MPTA together. In addition, the proportion of limbs within published adjusted mechanical alignment (aMA) and rKA protocols were determined, as well as those within one, two and three standard deviations of the means for HKA, LDFA and MPTA. Results When restrictions to mHKA alone were applied, 74.0% and 97.8% of knees were captured with boundaries of ± 3° and ± 6° respectively. However, when the same boundaries to HKA were also applied to MPTA and LDFA, 36.2% and 91.0% of knees were captured respectively, highlighting the limiting effect that JLO has on restoration of normal knee phenotypes. When comparing previously published boundaries, aMA of 0° ± 3° captured 36.2%; rKA of 0° ± 3 for HKA and 85° to 95° for LDFA/MPTA captured 67.8%; rKA of − 5° to 4° HKA and 86°–93° for LDFA/MPTA captured 63%; and rKA of − 6° to + 3° for HKA and 84°–93° for LDFA/MPTA captured 85.4%. Conclusion The greatest proportions of normal knee phenotypes were captured with boundaries that were centred around population means for HKA and JLO. Further, these findings demonstrate that restricting the JLO has a significant limiting influence on restoration of normal knee phenotypes beyond that of restricting HKA alone. Level of evidence III.