ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Achieving soft tissue balance is an operative goal in total knee arthroplasty. This randomised, prospective study compared computer navigation to conventional techniques in achieving soft tissue balance. METHODS: Forty one consecutive knee arthroplasties were randomised to either a non-navigated or navigated group. In the non-navigated group, balancing was carried out using surgeon judgement. In the navigated group, balancing was carried out using navigation software. In both groups, the navigation software was used as a measuring tool. RESULTS: Balancing of the mediolateral extension gap was superior in the navigation group (p=0.001). No significant difference was found between the two groups in balancing the mediolateral flexion gap or in achieving equal flexion and extension gaps. CONCLUSIONS: Computer navigation offered little advantage over experienced surgeon judgement in achieving soft tissue balance in knee replacement. However, the method employed in the navigated group did provide a reproducible and objective assessment of flexion and extension gaps and may therefore benefit surgeons in training. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, RCT.
Subject(s)
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee/methods , Range of Motion, Articular/physiology , Surgery, Computer-Assisted/methods , Aged , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee/adverse effects , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Joint Instability/diagnostic imaging , Joint Instability/physiopathology , Knee Prosthesis , Male , Middle Aged , Predictive Value of Tests , Prospective Studies , Prosthesis Design , Prosthesis Failure , Queensland , Radiography , Risk Assessment , Soft Tissue Injuries/prevention & control , Statistics, Nonparametric , Surgery, Computer-Assisted/adverse effects , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The continuing emergence of new bone cements with additional antibiotics makes it important to establish which one will provide the most favourable antibiotic elution. An in vitro antibiotic elution and mechanical study was therefore carried out to compare a newer bone cement, SmartSet, with the established Palacos R cement. METHODS: Samples were prepared with each cement adding 1 g gentamicin, 1 g of vancomycin, or 1 g of gentamicin and vancomycin. The samples were analysed using fluorescence polarisation immunoassay. Mechanical tests were performed to determine whether any significant degradation in the cement strength occurred following addition of the antibiotic. RESULTS: With regards to gentamicin release Palacos R eluted significantly more antibiotic over the study period than SmartSet (p<0.001). Both cements eluted significantly more gentamicin when two antibiotics were added. With respect to vancomycin release there was no significant difference. Palacos R was significantly stronger than SmartSet in the 4-point bending test when the gentamicin + vancomycin antibiotic groups were compared (p=0.01). Palacos R also demonstrated a higher elastic modulus than SmartSet when the gentamicin and gentamicin + vancomycin groups were compared (p=0.03, p=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Gentamcin shows better release characteristics from Palacos R. Both cements exhibited synergistic release of combined antibiotics.
