股骨机械解剖轴角度的变化及其对初次和翻修全膝关节置换术的影响。

IF 2.8 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Bone & Joint Open Pub Date : 2024-02-06 DOI:10.1302/2633-1462.52.BJO-2023-0056.R1
Seong J Jang, Kyle N Kunze, Jack C Casey, Jack R Steele, David J Mayman, Seth A Jerabek, Peter K Sculco, Jonathan M Vigdorchik
{"title":"股骨机械解剖轴角度的变化及其对初次和翻修全膝关节置换术的影响。","authors":"Seong J Jang, Kyle N Kunze, Jack C Casey, Jack R Steele, David J Mayman, Seth A Jerabek, Peter K Sculco, Jonathan M Vigdorchik","doi":"10.1302/2633-1462.52.BJO-2023-0056.R1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Distal femoral resection in conventional total knee arthroplasty (TKA) utilizes an intramedullary guide to determine coronal alignment, commonly planned for 5° of valgus. However, a standard 5° resection angle may contribute to malalignment in patients with variability in the femoral anatomical and mechanical axis angle. The purpose of the study was to leverage deep learning (DL) to measure the femoral mechanical-anatomical axis angle (FMAA) in a heterogeneous cohort.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with full-limb radiographs from the Osteoarthritis Initiative were included. A DL workflow was created to measure the FMAA and validated against human measurements. To reflect potential intramedullary guide placement during manual TKA, two different FMAAs were calculated either using a line approximating the entire diaphyseal shaft, and a line connecting the apex of the femoral intercondylar sulcus to the centre of the diaphysis. The proportion of FMAAs outside a range of 5.0° (SD 2.0°) was calculated for both definitions, and FMAA was compared using univariate analyses across sex, BMI, knee alignment, and femur length.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The algorithm measured 1,078 radiographs at a rate of 12.6 s/image (2,156 unique measurements in 3.8 hours). There was no significant difference or bias between reader and algorithm measurements for the FMAA (p = 0.130 to 0.563). The FMAA was 6.3° (SD 1.0°; 25% outside range of 5.0° (SD 2.0°)) using definition one and 4.6° (SD 1.3°; 13% outside range of 5.0° (SD 2.0°)) using definition two. Differences between males and females were observed using definition two (males more valgus; p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We developed a rapid and accurate DL tool to quantify the FMAA. Considerable variation with different measurement approaches for the FMAA supports that patient-specific anatomy and surgeon-dependent technique must be accounted for when correcting for the FMAA using an intramedullary guide. The angle between the mechanical and anatomical axes of the femur fell outside the range of 5.0° (SD 2.0°) for nearly a quarter of patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":34103,"journal":{"name":"Bone & Joint Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10843864/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Variability of the femoral mechanical-anatomical axis angle and its implications in primary and revision total knee arthroplasty.\",\"authors\":\"Seong J Jang, Kyle N Kunze, Jack C Casey, Jack R Steele, David J Mayman, Seth A Jerabek, Peter K Sculco, Jonathan M Vigdorchik\",\"doi\":\"10.1302/2633-1462.52.BJO-2023-0056.R1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Distal femoral resection in conventional total knee arthroplasty (TKA) utilizes an intramedullary guide to determine coronal alignment, commonly planned for 5° of valgus. However, a standard 5° resection angle may contribute to malalignment in patients with variability in the femoral anatomical and mechanical axis angle. The purpose of the study was to leverage deep learning (DL) to measure the femoral mechanical-anatomical axis angle (FMAA) in a heterogeneous cohort.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with full-limb radiographs from the Osteoarthritis Initiative were included. A DL workflow was created to measure the FMAA and validated against human measurements. To reflect potential intramedullary guide placement during manual TKA, two different FMAAs were calculated either using a line approximating the entire diaphyseal shaft, and a line connecting the apex of the femoral intercondylar sulcus to the centre of the diaphysis. The proportion of FMAAs outside a range of 5.0° (SD 2.0°) was calculated for both definitions, and FMAA was compared using univariate analyses across sex, BMI, knee alignment, and femur length.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The algorithm measured 1,078 radiographs at a rate of 12.6 s/image (2,156 unique measurements in 3.8 hours). There was no significant difference or bias between reader and algorithm measurements for the FMAA (p = 0.130 to 0.563). The FMAA was 6.3° (SD 1.0°; 25% outside range of 5.0° (SD 2.0°)) using definition one and 4.6° (SD 1.3°; 13% outside range of 5.0° (SD 2.0°)) using definition two. Differences between males and females were observed using definition two (males more valgus; p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We developed a rapid and accurate DL tool to quantify the FMAA. Considerable variation with different measurement approaches for the FMAA supports that patient-specific anatomy and surgeon-dependent technique must be accounted for when correcting for the FMAA using an intramedullary guide. The angle between the mechanical and anatomical axes of the femur fell outside the range of 5.0° (SD 2.0°) for nearly a quarter of patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":34103,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bone & Joint Open\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10843864/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bone & Joint Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1302/2633-1462.52.BJO-2023-0056.R1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bone & Joint Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1302/2633-1462.52.BJO-2023-0056.R1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:传统全膝关节置换术(TKA)中的股骨远端切除利用髓内导板确定冠状对位,通常计划为5°外翻。然而,标准的 5° 切除角可能会导致股骨解剖和机械轴角不一致的患者出现对位不良。本研究的目的是利用深度学习(DL)来测量异质性队列中的股骨机械解剖轴角(FMAA):方法:研究对象包括骨关节炎倡议中获得全肢X光片的患者。方法:纳入骨关节炎倡议的全肢体X光片患者。创建了一个DL工作流程来测量FMAA,并根据人体测量结果进行了验证。为了反映手动TKA过程中可能出现的髓内导板置入情况,计算了两种不同的FMAA,一种是使用近似整个骺轴的线,另一种是连接股骨髁间沟顶点和骨骺中心的线。计算了两种定义的 FMAA 在 5.0°(SD 2.0°)范围之外的比例,并对不同性别、体重指数、膝关节排列和股骨长度的 FMAA 进行了单变量分析比较:该算法测量了 1,078 张射线照片,每张照片耗时 12.6 秒(3.8 小时内完成 2,156 次测量)。读者和算法对 FMAA 的测量结果无明显差异或偏差(p = 0.130 至 0.563)。使用定义一,FMAA 为 6.3°(标清 1.0°;25% 在 5.0°(标清 2.0°)范围之外);使用定义二,FMAA 为 4.6°(标清 1.3°;13% 在 5.0°(标清 2.0°)范围之外)。使用定义二观察到了男性和女性之间的差异(男性更外翻;P < 0.001):结论:我们开发了一种快速、准确的 DL 工具来量化 FMAA。不同的 FMAA 测量方法存在很大差异,这表明在使用髓内导板校正 FMAA 时,必须考虑患者的特定解剖结构和外科医生的相关技术。近四分之一患者的股骨机械轴和解剖轴之间的角度超出了5.0°(SD 2.0°)的范围。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Variability of the femoral mechanical-anatomical axis angle and its implications in primary and revision total knee arthroplasty.

Aims: Distal femoral resection in conventional total knee arthroplasty (TKA) utilizes an intramedullary guide to determine coronal alignment, commonly planned for 5° of valgus. However, a standard 5° resection angle may contribute to malalignment in patients with variability in the femoral anatomical and mechanical axis angle. The purpose of the study was to leverage deep learning (DL) to measure the femoral mechanical-anatomical axis angle (FMAA) in a heterogeneous cohort.

Methods: Patients with full-limb radiographs from the Osteoarthritis Initiative were included. A DL workflow was created to measure the FMAA and validated against human measurements. To reflect potential intramedullary guide placement during manual TKA, two different FMAAs were calculated either using a line approximating the entire diaphyseal shaft, and a line connecting the apex of the femoral intercondylar sulcus to the centre of the diaphysis. The proportion of FMAAs outside a range of 5.0° (SD 2.0°) was calculated for both definitions, and FMAA was compared using univariate analyses across sex, BMI, knee alignment, and femur length.

Results: The algorithm measured 1,078 radiographs at a rate of 12.6 s/image (2,156 unique measurements in 3.8 hours). There was no significant difference or bias between reader and algorithm measurements for the FMAA (p = 0.130 to 0.563). The FMAA was 6.3° (SD 1.0°; 25% outside range of 5.0° (SD 2.0°)) using definition one and 4.6° (SD 1.3°; 13% outside range of 5.0° (SD 2.0°)) using definition two. Differences between males and females were observed using definition two (males more valgus; p < 0.001).

Conclusion: We developed a rapid and accurate DL tool to quantify the FMAA. Considerable variation with different measurement approaches for the FMAA supports that patient-specific anatomy and surgeon-dependent technique must be accounted for when correcting for the FMAA using an intramedullary guide. The angle between the mechanical and anatomical axes of the femur fell outside the range of 5.0° (SD 2.0°) for nearly a quarter of patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Bone & Joint Open
Bone & Joint Open ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Metabolic syndrome in the setting of obesity: impact on in-hospital complications and outcomes after total knee and hip arthroplasty. Unexpected positive cultures in aseptic revision hip and knee arthroplasty. Ten-year clinical and radiological outcomes with a vitamin E-infused highly cross-linked polyethylene acetabular cup. Large variability in degree of constraint of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty liners between different implant systems. Robotic-navigated spinal decompression procedures: the next frontier.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1