Search Results
Academic Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, LGI, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust, UK
Search for other papers by Sohail Nisar in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jeya Palan in
Google Scholar
PubMed
The Lister Hospital, Chelsea Bridge, London, UK
Centre de l’Arthrose - Clinique du Sport, Bordeaux-Mérignac, France
Search for other papers by Charles Rivière in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Mark Emerton in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust, UK
Search for other papers by Hemant Pandit in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-
Kinematic alignment (KA) is an alternative philosophy for aligning a total knee replacement (TKR) which aims to restore all three kinematic axes of the native knee.
-
Many of the studies on KA have actually described non-KA techniques, which has led to much confusion about what actually fits the definition of KA.
-
Alignment should only be measured using three-dimensional cross-sectional imaging. Many of the studies looking at the influence of implants/limb alignment on total knee arthroplasty outcomes are of limited value because of the use of two-dimensional imaging to measure alignment, potentially leading to inaccuracy.
-
No studies have shown KA to be associated with higher complication rates or with worse implant survival; and the clinical outcomes following KA tend to be at least as good as mechanical alignment.
-
Further high-quality multi-centre randomized controlled trials are needed to establish whether KA provides better function and without adversely impacting implant survival.
Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:380-390. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.200010
Personalized Arthroplasty Society, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Search for other papers by Charles Rivière in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Headington, Oxford, UK
Search for other papers by William Jackson in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Personalized Arthroplasty Society, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Search for other papers by Loïc Villet in
Google Scholar
PubMed
South-West London Elective Orthopaedic Centre, Epsom, UK
Search for other papers by Sivan Sivaloganathan in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Shamir Medical Center, Zriffin, Israel
Search for other papers by Yaron Barziv in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Département de Chirurgie, Université de Montréal, Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont, Montréal, Québec, Canada
Search for other papers by Pascal-André Vendittoli in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-
The Kinematic Alignment (KA) technique for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an alternative surgical technique aiming to resurface knee articular surfaces.
-
The restricted KA (rKA) technique for TKA applies boundaries to the KA technique in order to avoid reproducing extreme constitutional limb/knee anatomies.
-
The vast majority of TKA cases are straightforward and can be performed with KA in a standard (unrestricted) fashion.
-
There are some specific situations where performing KA TKA may be more challenging (complex KA TKA cases) and surgical technique adaptations should be included.
-
To secure good clinical outcomes, complex KA TKA cases must be preoperatively recognized, and planned accordingly.
-
The proposed classification system describes six specific issues that must be considered when aiming for a KA TKA implantation.
-
Specific recommendations for each situation type should improve the reliability of the prosthetic implantation to the benefit of the patient.
-
The proposed classification system could contribute to the adoption of a common language within our orthopaedic community that would ease inter-surgeon communication and could benefit the teaching of the KA technique. This proposed classification system is not exhaustive and will certainly be improved over time.
Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:881-891. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210042
Search for other papers by Charles Rivière in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Stefan Lazic in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Oliver Boughton in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Yann Wiart in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Loic Vïllet in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Justin Cobb in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-
Mechanical or anatomical alignment techniques create a supposedly ‘biomechanically friendly’ but often functionally limited prosthetic knee.
-
Alternative techniques for alignment in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) aim at being more anatomical and patient-specific, aiming to improve functional outcomes after TKA.
-
The kinematic alignment (KA) technique for TKA has shown good early clinical outcomes. Its role in extreme anatomical variation remains to be defined.
-
The restricted KA technique for TKA might be a reasonable option for patients with extreme anatomical variation.
-
While unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has many advantages over TKA, the revision rate remains higher compared with TKA. One major explanation is the relative ease with which a UKA can be converted to a TKA, compared with revising a TKA. This can be considered as an additional advantage of UKA. Another reason is that surgeons favour revising a UKA to a TKA in cases of degeneration of the other femorotibial compartment rather than performing a relatively simple re-operation of the knee by doing an additional UKA (staged bi-UKA).
Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2018;3:1–6. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.170021
South West London Elective Orthopaedic Centre, UK
Search for other papers by Charles Rivière in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Stefan Lazic in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Louis Dagneaux in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Catherine Van Der Straeten in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Justin Cobb in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Sarah Muirhead-Allwood in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-
Patients with hip osteoarthritis often have an abnormal spine-hip relation (SHR), meaning the presence of a clinically deleterious spine-hip and/or hip-spine syndrome.
-
Definition of the individual SHR is ideally done using the EOS® imaging system or, if not available, with conventional lumbopelvic lateral radiographs.
-
By pre-operatively screening patients with abnormal SHR, it is possible to refine total hip replacement (THR) surgical planning, which may improve outcomes.
-
An important component of the concept of kinematically aligned total hip arthroplasty (KA THA) consists of defining the optimal acetabular cup design and orientation based on the assessment of an individual’s SHR, and use of the transverse acetabular ligament to adjust the cup positioning.
-
The Bordeaux classification might advance the understanding of SHR and hopefully help improve THR outcomes.
Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2018;3:39-44. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.170020
Search for other papers by Charles Rivière in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Stefan Lazic in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Loïc Villet in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Yann Wiart in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Sarah Muirhead Allwood in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Justin Cobb in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-
Conventional techniques for hip and knee arthroplasty have led to good long-term clinical outcomes, but complications remain despite better surgical precision and improvements in implant design and quality.
-
Technological improvements and a better understanding of joint kinematics have facilitated the progression to ‘personalized’ implant positioning (kinematic alignment) for total hip (THA) and knee (TKA) arthroplasty, the true value of which remains to be determined.
-
By achieving a true knee resurfacing, the kinematic alignment (KA) technique for TKA aims at aligning the components with the physiological kinematic axes of the knee and restoring the constitutional tibio-femoral joint line frontal and axial orientation and soft-tissue laxity.
-
The KA technique for THA aims at restoring the native ‘combined femoro-acetabular anteversion’ and the hip’s centre of rotation, and occasionally adjusting the cup position and design based on the assessment of the individual spine-hip relation.
-
The key element for optimal prosthetic joint kinematics (hip or knee) is to reproduce the femoral anatomy.
-
The transverse acetabular ligament (TAL) is the reference landmark to adjust the cup position.
Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2018;3:98-105. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.170022
Search for other papers by Stefan Lazic in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Oliver Boughton in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Catherine F. Kellett in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Deiary F. Kader in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Loïc Villet in
Google Scholar
PubMed
MSK Lab, Imperial College London, UK
Search for other papers by Charles Rivière in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-
Multimodal protocols for pain control, blood loss management and thromboprophylaxis have been shown to benefit patients by being more effective and as safe (fewer iatrogenic complications) as conventional protocols.
-
Proper patient selection and education, multimodal protocols and a well-defined clinical pathway are all key for successful day-case arthroplasty.
-
By potentially being more effective, cheaper than and as safe as inpatient arthroplasty, day-case arthroplasty might be beneficial for patients and healthcare systems.
Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2018;3:130-135. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.170031
Surgery Department, Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont, Montreal University, Montreal, Québec, Canada
Clinique orthopédique Duval, 1487 Boul des Laurentides, Laval
Search for other papers by Pascal-André Vendittoli in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Bordeaux Arthroplasty Research Institute - Clinique du Sport Bordeaux-Mérignac 04-06 rue Georges Negrevergne, Mérignac, France
Search for other papers by Charles Riviere in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Kantonsspital Baselland, Bruderholz, Switzerland
Clinical Research Group Michael T. Hirschmann, Regenerative Medicine & Biomechanics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
Search for other papers by Michael T Hirschmann in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
Search for other papers by Stefano Bini in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-
Although hip and knee joint replacements provide excellent clinical results, many patients still do not report the sensation and function of a natural joint. The perception that the joint is artificial may result from the anatomical modifications imposed by the surgical technique and the implant design. Moreover, the joint replacement material may not function similarly to human tissues.
-
To restore native joint kinematics, function, and perception, three key elements play a role: (i) joint morphology (articular surface geometry, bony anatomy, etc.), (ii) lower limb anatomy (alignment, joint orientation), and (iii) soft tissue laxity/tension.
-
To provide a ‘forgotten joint’ to most patients, it is becoming clear that personalizing joint replacement is the key solution. Performing a personalized joint replacement starts with patient selection and preoperative optimization, followed by using a surgical technique and implant design aimed at restoring the patient’s native anatomy, creating optimal implant-to-bone stress transfer, restoring the joint’s native articular range of motion without imposed limitations, macro- and micro-stability of the soft tissues, and a bearing whose wear resistance provides lifetime survivorship with unrestricted activities. In addition, the whole perioperative experience should follow enhanced recovery after surgery principles, favoring a rapid and complication-free recovery.
-
As a new concept, some confusion may arise when applying these personalized surgery principles. Therefore, the Personalized Arthroplasty Society was created to help structure and accelerate the adoption of this paradigm change. This statement from the Society on personalized arthroplasty will serve as a reference that will evolve with time.
Search for other papers by Charles Rivière in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Guido Grappiolo in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Charles A. Engh Jr in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jean-Pierre Vidalain in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Antonia-F. Chen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Nicolas Boehler in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jihad Matta in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Pascal-André Vendittoli in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-
Bone remodelling around a stem is an unavoidable long-term physiological process highly related to implant design. For some predisposed patients, it can lead to periprosthetic bone loss secondary to severe stress-shielding, which is thought to be detrimental by contributing to late loosening, late periprosthetic fracture, and thus rendering revision surgery more complicated.
-
However, these concerns remain theoretical, since late loosening has yet to be documented among bone ingrowth cementless stems demonstrating periprosthetic bone loss associated with stress-shielding.
-
Because none of the stems replicate the physiological load pattern on the proximal femur, each stem design is associated with a specific load pattern leading to specific adaptive periprosthetic bone remodelling. In their daily practice, orthopaedic surgeons need to differentiate physiological long-term bone remodelling patterns from pathological conditions such as loosening, sepsis or osteolysis.
-
To aid in that process, we decided to clarify the behaviour of the five most used femoral stems. In order to provide translational knowledge, we decided to gather the designers’ and experts’ knowledge and experience related to the design rationale and the long-term bone remodelling of the following femoral stems we deemed ‘legendary’ and still commonly used: Corail (Depuy); Taperloc (Biomet); AML (Depuy); Alloclassic (Zimmer); and CLS-Spotorno (Zimmer).
Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2018;3:45-57. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.170024
