Search

Background: Patient‐Specific Surgical Guides (PSSGs) are advocated for reducing radiation exposure, operation time and enhancing precision in surgery. However, existing accuracy assessments are limited to specific surgeries, leaving uncertainties about variations in accuracy across different anatomical sites, three‐dimensional (3D) printing technologies and manufacturers (traditional vs. printed at the point of care). This study aimed to evaluate PSSGs accuracy in traumatology and orthopaedic surgery, considering anatomical regions, printing methods and manufacturers. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analysis guidelines. Studies were eligible if they (1) assessed the accuracy of PSSGs by comparing preoperative planning and postoperative results in at least two different planes (2) used either computer tomography or magnetic resonance imaging (3) covered the field of orthopaedic surgery or traumatology and (4) were available in English or German language. The 'Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies' was used for methodological quality assessment. Descriptive statistics, including mean, standard deviation, and ranges, are presented. A random effects meta‐analysis was performed to determine the pooled mean absolute deviation between preoperative plan and postoperative result for each anatomic region (shoulder, hip, spine, and knee). Results: Of 4212 initially eligible studies, 33 were included in the final analysis (8 for shoulder, 5 for hip, 5 for spine, 14 for knee and 1 for trauma). Pooled mean deviation (95% confidence interval) for total knee arthroplasty (TKA), total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), total hip arthroplasty (THA) and spine surgery (pedicle screw placement during spondylodesis) were 1.82° (1.48, 2.15), 2.52° (1.9, 3.13), 3.49° (3.04, 3.93) and 2.67° (1.64, 3.69), respectively. Accuracy varied between TKA and THA and between TKA and TSA. Conclusion: Accuracy of PSSGs depends on the type of surgery but averages around 2–3° deviation from the plan. The use of PSSGs might be considered for selected complex cases. Level of Evidence: Level 3 (meta‐analysis including Level 3 studies). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to report and compare outcome data of both primary and revision cases using a rotating hinge knee (RHK) implant. Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed 63 cases (19 primary, 44 revisions) at a mean follow-up of 34 ± 8 months after RHK implantation. Outcome parameters were stability, range of motion (ROM), loosening, Hospital of Special Surgery Score (HSS), Knee Society Score (KSS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), EQ-5D-3L, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for overall function. Revision rates and implant survival are reported. Results: Eleven percent showed medio-lateral instability < 5 mm, a mean ROM of 115° ± 17° and radiologic loosening occurred in 8% (2% symptomatic). PROMS showed the following results: HSS 79 ± 18, KSS 78 ± 27, OKS 26 ± 10, EQ-5D index 0.741 ± 0.233 and VAS 70 ± 20. Primary cases revealed better outcomes in HHS (p =.035) and OKS (p = 0.047). KSS, EQ-5D index and VAS did not differ between primary and revision cases (p = 0.070; p = 0.377; p = 0.117). Revision rate was 6.3% with an implant survival of 96.8%. Conclusions: RHK arthroplasty can be performed with good clinical outcome and low revision rate in revision and complex primary cases. RHK is an option in cases where standard arthroplasty and even implants with a higher degree of constraint have reached their limits. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]