Skip to main content
Download PDF

Assessment of preoperative planning and intraoperative accuracy of the AIKNEE system for total knee arthroplasty

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders volume 25, Article number: 562 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the effectiveness and accuracy of the AIKNEE system in preoperative planning and intraoperative alignment for total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Methods

A total of 64 patients were planned preoperatively by the AIKNEE system, including the measurement of mechanical femorotibial angle (mFTA), lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA), and medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) using three-dimensional reconstructed images. Intraoperatively, the actual prosthesis size and alignment were compared to the planned parameters. Postoperative outcomes, including pain levels, range of motion (ROM), and Knee Scoring System (KSS) scores, were assessed after surgery. Statistical analyses were performed to evaluate the correlation between alignment deviations and postoperative function.

Results

The AIKNEE system accurately predicted the prosthesis size in thirty-one of femoral cases (48%) and forty-seven of tibial cases (73%). Deviations of mFTA, LDFA, and MPTA from the target value were within 3° in 88%, 92%, and 95% of cases, respectively. A significant improvement was observed in postoperative pain, ROM, and KSS scores (p < 0.001). Correlation analysis revealed that greater deviations in mFTA and LDFA were associated with increased pain (p = 0.004, 0.047) and lower KSS scores (p = 0.027).

Conclusion

The AIKNEE system demonstrated promising results in predicting prosthesis size and achieved alignment within the desired range in a majority of cases. Postoperative outcomes, including pain levels and functional improvement, were favorable.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The preoperative planning of precise is advantageous for promoting knee prosthesis alignment, minimizing postoperative pain, and enhancing patient satisfaction [1,2,3,4]. X-ray and computed tomography (CT) imaging techniques offer crucial data for preoperative planning. While X-ray imaging is economical and convenient, it necessitates a high level of expertise from the radiologists. On the other hand, CT imaging is not constrained by the patient’s position and imaging proficiency, and can be directly reconstructed using software to facilitate preoperative planning [5, 6]. Prediction of prosthesis sizes derived three-dimensional (3D) reconstructed knees are more sensitive and accurate than results from two-dimensional (2D) images [7].

In a clinical setting, 3D reconstruction of CT images helps formulate more reasonable surgical planning. Especially, it was combined with artificial intelligence, such as PSI devices and robotic-assisted, which are costly [7]. Intelligent autonomous planning is the further development of artificial intelligence technology, is the ultimate goal of mission planning, and also economical, convenient. Traditionally, Mimics software is commonly used for preoperative planning and require image segmentation, which is time-consuming and prone to human error [8]. CT Images are acquired and imported into the AIKNEE system, and a report is created. The report covers knee parameters, osteotomy thickness, and prosthesis sizes. At present, the clinical application of AIKNEE system is still rare, and its accuracy is still uncertain; Therefore, the study was to evaluate the effectiveness and accuracy of the AIKNEE system in preoperative planning and intraoperative alignment for total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Materials and methods

Patients

This was an institutional review board-approved retrospective study (Fujian Province Second People’s Hospital, SPHFJP-K2022017-02). Patients who had perfected preoperative planning for AIKNEE and underwent total knee arthroplasty between January 2021 and October 2022 were included. All procedures were performed by a fellowship-trained orthopedic surgeon at an academic institution.

AIKNEE Workflow

  1. (1)

    Import DICOM images and reconstruct the knee joint in three-dimensions.

  2. (2)

    The AIKNEE system automatically identifies and labels the mechanical axis of the femur (line a), the anatomical axis of the femur (line b) and the mechanical axis of the tibia (line c) on the 3D reconstructed image (Fig. 1A). Measurement of angles such as mechanical femorotibial angle (mFTA), anatomical femorotibial angle (aFTA), anatomic mechanic axis deviation (AMA), posterior condylar axis (PCA), the lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA), the medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA), and joint line convergence angle (JLCA).

  3. (3)

    The AIKNEE system further analyzes the measured data to estimate the thickness of the femoral and tibial osteotomies, predict the size of the prosthesis, and simulate its placement (Fig. 1B). Review of mechanical axis alignment again (line a perpendicular to line d, line c perpendicular to line f and the angle between line a and line c is 180°), observe the fit of the prosthesis and generate a preoperative planning report. The surgeon refers to this report to draw up the surgical plan and for intraoperative reference.

Knee-related parameters

mFTA: the angle between line a and line c, is a direct indicator of the observed alignment of the mechanical axis, which is maintained with a target of 180°; AMA: The angle between line a and line b (Fig. 1A) is an important indicator of the presence of extra-articular deformity, with a normal range of 5° to 7°. JLCA: the angle between line d and line f, to evaluate the gap balance, the target is 0°, meaning that parallelism between lines d and f. LDFA: the lateral angle between line a and line d (Fig. 1A); MPTA: the angle between line c and line f (Fig. 1A); LDFA and MPTA are aimed at 90° to achieve mechanical alignments. Deviation of each angle from the target value, such as mFTA, LDFA and MPTA, within 3° can effectively improve the survival rate of the prosthesis [9,10,11,12]. Deviations within 3° were designated as non-outliers in this study, and those beyond 3° as outliers.

Fig. 1
figure 1

(A) AIKNEE system preoperative planning imaging; (B) AIKNEE system Post-planning imaging, Pink means the location of the planned prosthesis; Line a: mechanical axis of femur; line b: anatomical axis of femur; line c: mechanical axis of tibia; line d: parallel line of distal femur; line f: tibial plateau line; mFTA: the angle between line a and line c; ①: anatomic mechanic axis deviation (AMA), the angle between line a and line b; ②: lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA), the lateral angle between line a and line d; ③: medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA), the angle between line c and line f

Full size image

Data collection

  1. (1)

    Preoperative data: patient demographics age, sex, body mass index, Knee Scoring System (KSS) Score, Visual Analogue Score (VAS), range of motion (ROM).

KSS: an important index that responds to knee recovery after total knee arthroplasty [13, 14]. It was used to assess patients’ VAS scores for walking on level ground, stairs or slopes, as well as knee stability, ROM and distance traveled. Knee function was assessed at preoperatively, postoperatively with the use of the KSS Score.

  1. (2)

    The deviation between the postoperative mFTA, LDFA, MPTA and the surgical target value is marked as a D(Deviation) value, and it can also be considered a degree of residual deformity. Analysis of the correlation between D values and postoperative ROM, VAS scores and KSS scores to observe the effect of D values on postoperative function.

  2. (3)

    Preoperative planning reports can be referenced before the preparation of prototype sizes. The AIKNEE predictive prosthesis sizes is prioritized. If the predicted size of the prosthesis is perfect match, only one insertions test is required; And more insertions for a deviation of more than 1 size, which is related to the experience of the surgeon. The enhancement of the accuracy rate of preoperative planning of prostheses sizes, decreases operation time and saves surgical resources, reduces the number of intraoperative prosthesis insertions, and promotes functional recovery after surgery [9, 11].

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS20.0 software. The measurement data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (x ± s), and all were in line with approximate normal distribution or normal distribution. Comparisons of indexes before and after surgery within groups were performed using paired samples t-tests. The Chi-square test was used for qualitative values. Knee-related parameters were correlated with postoperative ROM, VAS score and KSS score using spearman correlation analysis. The statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 for all tests.

Results

A total of 64 patients were included in the study, mean age 68.17 ± 7.94 years, Body Mass Index (BMI) 26.52 ± 4.22 kg/m2.

According to the results of correlation analysis, there was a negative correlation between the D value and the knee function (p < 0.05). The larger the mFTA deviation from target values, the lower the KSS scores, the poorer the knee function. (p = 0.027). The severity of pain intensity worse with increasing mFTA or LDFA divergence from target values (p = 0.004, 0.047) (Table 1). Additionally, the study suggests a close correlation between alignment, postoperative pain, and function.

In this study, the patients primarily had varus knee deformities; The mechanical axis was corrected from 189.31 ± 5.08° to 181.21 ± 2.40°, and 88% of mFTA, 92% of LDFA, and 95% of MPTA were within 3° of our target values, effectively correcting the alignment deformities in most patients. (Table 2)

The preoperative JLCA of 5.97 ± 3.37° was significantly reduced to 0.31 ± 0.28° postoperatively, resulting in nearly parallel joint lines, achieving gap balancing. (Table 2) Significant improvements were observed in KSS knee score, VAS score, and ROM postoperatively compared to preoperative measurements. (p < 0.001) (Table 2).

Table 1 Correlation analysis of the postoperative outlier differences of each knee parameter with function
Full size table
Table 2 Preoperative and postoperative patient conditions
Full size table

The accuracy of femoral and tibial prosthesis sizes was 48% and 73%, respectively; The mean intraoperative femoral side prosthetics were inserted 1.67 ± 0.82 times, the tibial side were inserted 1.38 ± 0.70 times; The tibial side prediction accuracy was greater (p = 0.004), and the number of prostheses insertions was fewer (p = 0.009). (Table 3)

Table 3 Statistical analysis of the number of intraoperative prosthesis insertion trials
Full size table

In patients with more than 2 inserts of femoral and tibial prosthesis, 92% of patients had flexion contracture deformity; One of the patients had a flexion deformity of 15°, a lax medial collateral ligament, and the largest deviation in tibia and femur model. Consideration of flexion deformity and ligament relaxation may have an impact on its prediction.

Case report

A 68-year-old woman admitted to our clinic with left knee pain and limitation in knee flexion. Admission check: The left knee had a flexion contracture of 15°, and the ROM of the left knee was 15° (extension) to 90° (flexion), and instability was observed in the stress tests. The patient with an mFTA of 184.5° and an aFTA of 178.5°, indicative of a patient with an unstable varus deformity. The.

preoperative KSS score was 75. Preoperative planning predicted a prosthesis size of ATTUNE size-3 by the AIKNEE software (Fig. 2). Intraoperatively, it was adjusted to an ATTUNE size-6 prosthesis and the medial collateral ligament was reconstructed. Postoperative review of the left knee X-ray (Fig. 3). The patients started with active and passive ROM exercises from the first postoperative day. Follow-up of the patient was performed at 1-month, 3-months, and 6-months after surgery. Post-surgery, the varus deformity was corrected, and the patient experienced good functional recovery.

Fig. 2
figure 2

(A-B) AIKNEE system automatically generates relevant data before prosthesis planning: the position of the pentagram is the point of the femur penetration. (C-D) AIKNEE system plans for femoral side prostheses: Pink means the location of the planned prosthesis; The gray line means the original internal and external femoral condyles; The black line represents the osteotomy thickness planned. (G-I) AIKNEE system plans for tibial side prostheses: Pink means the location of the planned prosthesis; The gray line means the original tibial plateau position; The black line means the osteotomy thickness planned

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Post operation X-ray (AP and lateral view) of left knee after total knee arthroplasty

Full size image

Discussion

Mechanical alignment, gap balance and prosthesis fit are key factors in postoperative pain and functional improvement. This study found a positive correlation between the degree of residual deformity (D value) of the mechanical axis mFTA and LDFA with postoperative pain, indicating that worse coronal alignment of the knee joint leads to greater postoperative pain and poorer function. And gap balancing improves buckling stability [15,16,17]. However, we cannot overlook the fit of the prosthesis. Looking at the long-term effects, a well-fitted prosthesis reduces the risk of postoperative joint pain and component loosening [4, 8, 18]. The higher the accuracy of the prediction of anatomical positioning, osteotomy thickness, and knee size, the more effective it is to promote alignment, gap balancing, reduce test insertion, simplify surgical steps, and save surgical time [9, 11, 19]. Therefore, whether it’s correcting the alignment, predicting osteotomy thickness, or matching the prosthesis, all are crucial in preoperative planning.

Preoperative and postoperative functional changes

Understanding joint characteristics is crucial for improving surgical accuracy and prosthesis lifespan. It also serves as a crucial prerequisite for surgery. Because of this, preoperative parameter measurement accuracy is crucial. Compared to X-rays, CT imaging, the location of the patient, the projection angle and the experience of the photographer, are the key tools for osteopathic surgery [20, 21]. Michel P. Bonnin et al. found that CT was more accurate in parameters measurement such as mFTA and more optimal in predicting the size and position of the prosthesis [22,23,24]. 3D CT reconstruction of the femur and tibia gives the surgeon more accurate preoperative data, prediction of osteotomy thickness and prosthesis size [7, 25]. This information aids in the reconstruction of mechanical alignment and soft tissue balance during surgery, which helps the patient regain function. In this study the mFTA was 189.31 ± 5.08° preoperatively and 181.21 ± 2.40° after intraoperative correction of the valgus deformity (p < 0.001). The preoperative JLCA of 5.97 ± 3.37° was significantly reduced to 0.31 ± 0.28° postoperatively, resulting in nearly parallel joint lines, achieving gap balancing, improving buckling stability. The KSS score for knee function improved from 98.66 ± 13.35 to 148.67 ± 8.20, pain was reduced from 6.14 ± 0.71 to 0.27 ± 0.48, and ROM improved significantly. The quality of patient survival was improved (p < 0.001).

Correlation analysis of knee joint parameter outliers

Results of this study indicate that the mechanical axes of the lower limbs, represented by the D value of mFTA, correlated with pain and knee function. The D value of LDFA is associated with increased severity of pain. And the greater the D value, the greater deviation from target value, the worse pain. The alignment of the mechanical axis of the femur and tibia in relation to the osteotomy plane has a direct impact on the pressure distribution in the double compartment, which is closely associated with postoperative knee pain and functional activities [26,27,28]. Furthermore, a significant proportion of the mFTA, LDFA, and MPTA measurements (88%, 92%, and 95% respectively) achieved the desired D value of less than 3°. Observation results of Michel P. Bonnin et al. showed that the Knee-Plan software (Symbios, Yverdon les bains, Switzerland) was utilized for preoperative planning, resulting in 84% of the D values for mFTA, LDFA, and MPTA being less than 3°, which is comparable to the findings of our study [23, 29, 30].

Analysis of the fit of the knee sizes

Poor fit is often associated with complications such as loosening of the prosthesis and functional impairment [5, 8, 18]. Although using X-ray images to establish a two-dimensional model is quick and cheap, it cannot effectively forecast the trend of knee alignment in patients [5, 31]. The three-dimensional model demonstrates a high level of accuracy in predicting the actual implant size, with some studies reporting accuracy rates of up to 100%. In contrast, the two-dimensional digital model only predicts the actual implant size in approximately 50% of cases [7]. The AIKNEE system exhibits an accuracy rate of 48% for femoral prostheses and 73% for tibial prostheses. Notably, the accuracy on the tibial side is significantly higher than that on the femoral side (p = 0.004). Additionally, the insertion of the tibial side prosthesis is less frequent (p = 0.009), and the accuracy of the tibial side prediction surpasses that of the two-dimensional model. In comparison to Miura M.D. et al. the utilization of the MIMICS system for the prediction of femoral and tibial components prostheses yielded an accuracy of 44.3% and 57.00% respectively [8]. Conversely, the AIKNEE system demonstrated a significantly enhanced accuracy for tibial prostheses, while also offering the advantages of reduced time and simplified operation when compared to Mimics software, with an average time per case reduced from approximately 24 min to only about 5 min [32,33,34]. However, as indicated by Vicente J et al., the accuracy of tibial prostheses prediction reached 92%, while femoral prostheses prediction exceeded 95%, thus displaying a high level of consistency [35]. Kotela et al. discovered that MyKnee achieved an 89.8% accuracy rate in predicting femoral components and 75.8% accuracy rate in predicting tibial components [36]. In comparison to the MyKnee system, the AIKNEE system’s accuracy requires further enhancement, and overall, its prosthesis prediction level is considered moderate.

Limitations

In this study, it is worth noting that one patient exhibited a flexion deformity of 15° and laxity in the medial collateral ligament, which resulted in the largest deviation in tibia and femur size, as well as the highest number of insertions. The failure to exclude factors that might have affected its accuracy was a weakness of this trial. Factors affecting accuracy include severe coronary deformity > 15°, knee stiffness and inadequate extension > 15°, flexion range < 90°, severe medial relaxation > 10°, or severe lateral relaxation > 15° [23]. Furthermore, the absence of cartilage visibility on CT scans may introduce bias in predicting osteotomy thickness, and the precision of preoperative planning may diminish in cases of trochlear dysplasia [37].

Conclusion

The AIKNEE system demonstrated promising results in predicting prosthesis size and achieved alignment within the desired range in a majority of cases. Postoperative outcomes, including pain levels and functional improvement, were favorable.

Data availability

All data are fully available without restriction. Requests for data can be made to the corresponding author.

Abbreviations

TKA:

total knee arthroplasty

mFTA:

mechanical femorotibial angle

LDFA:

lateral distal femoral angle

MPTA:

medial proximal tibial angle

aFTA:

anatomical femorotibial angle

AMA:

anatomic mechanic axis deviation

PCA:

posterior condylar axis

3D:

three-dimensional

2D:

two-dimensional

ROM:

range of motion

VAS:

visual analogue score

KSS:

knee scoring system scores

JLCA:

joint line convergence angle

D:

Deviation

References

  1. Dai Y, Bolch C, Jung A, et al. Accuracy and precision in resection alignment: insights from 10,144 clinical cases using a contemporary computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty system[J]. Knee. 2020;27(3):1010–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2020.02.024.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gustke KA, Golladay GJ, Roche MW, et al. A targeted Approach to Ligament Balancing using kinetic Sensors[J]. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(7):2127–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.02.021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mulhall KJ, Ghomrawi HM, Scully S, et al. Current etiologies and modes of failure in total knee arthroplasty revision[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;446:45–50. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000214421.21712.62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH et al. Insall Award paper. Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today? [J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2002(404):7–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200211000-00003.

  5. Ettinger M, Claassen L, Paes P, et al. 2D versus 3D templating in total knee arthroplasty[J]. Knee. 2016;23(1):149–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2015.08.014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Healy WL, Iorio R, Clair AJ, et al. Complications of total hip arthroplasty: standardized list, definitions, and Stratification developed by the hip Society[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474(2):357–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4341-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. van der Linden-van DZH, Wolterbeek R, Nelissen RG. Computer assisted orthopedic surgery; its influence on prosthesis size in total knee replacement[J]. Knee. 2008;15(4):281–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2008.03.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Miura M, Hagiwara S, Nakamura J, et al. Interobserver and Intraobserver reliability of computed tomography-based three-Dimensional Preoperative Planning for primary total knee Arthroplasty[J]. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(5):1572–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.12.035.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Burchard R, Burazin K, Soost C, et al. Computer-aided planning with exact implementation into surgical technique in TKA is as accurate as intraoperative navigation[J]. Technol Health Care. 2018;26(3):515–22. https://doi.org/10.3233/THC-171115.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Shetty GM, Mullaji A, Bhayde S, et al. Factors contributing to inherent varus alignment of lower limb in normal Asian adults: role of tibial plateau inclination[J]. Knee. 2014;21(2):544–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2013.09.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gordon JE, Chen RC, Dobbs MB, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability in the evaluation of mechanical axis deviation[J]. J Pediatr Orthop. 2009;29(3):281–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0b013e31819b9188.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Meier M, Janssen D, Koeck FX, et al. Variations in medial and lateral slope and medial proximal tibial angle[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021;29(3):939–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-06052-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Torres-Claramunt R, Leal J, Hinarejos P, et al. Correlation study between KSS, WOMAC and SF-36 scores in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty in a Spanish speaking population[J]. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(6):950–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2012.10.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lizaur-Utrilla A, Gonzalez-Parreno S, Martinez-Mendez D, et al. Minimal clinically important differences and substantial clinical benefits for knee Society Scores[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020;28(5):1473–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05543-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bellemans J, Banks S, Victor J, et al. Fluoroscopic analysis of the kinematics of deep flexion in total knee arthroplasty. Influence of posterior condylar offset[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84(1):50–3. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.84b1.12432.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Rossi S, Sangaletti R, Perticarini L, et al. High accuracy of a new robotically assisted technique for total knee arthroplasty: an in vivo study[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2023;31(3):1153–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06800-8.

  17. Diquattro E, Prill R, Salzmann M, et al. High three-dimensional accuracy of component placement and lower limb alignment using a robotic arm-assisted system and gap-balancing instrument in total knee arthroplasty[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2024;32(3):685–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/ksa.12088.

  18. Bori E, Pancani S, Vigliotta S, et al. Validation and accuracy evaluation of automatic segmentation for knee joint pre-planning[J]. Knee. 2021;33:275–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2021.10.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rossi S, Sangaletti R, Andriollo L, et al. The use of a modern robotic system for the treatment of severe knee deformities[J]. Technol Health Care. 2024. https://doi.org/10.3233/THC-231261.

  20. Kim YH, Park JW, Kim JS, et al. The relationship between the survival of total knee arthroplasty and postoperative coronal, sagittal and rotational alignment of knee prosthesis[J]. Int Orthop. 2014;38(2):379–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-2097-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hutter EE, Granger JF, Beal MD, et al. Is there a gold standard for TKA tibial component rotational alignment? [J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(5):1646–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-2822-0.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Bellemans J, Colyn W, Vandenneucker H, et al. The Chitranjan Ranawat award: is neutral mechanical alignment normal for all patients? The concept of constitutional varus[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(1):45–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-1936-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bonnin MP, Beckers L, Leon A, et al. Custom total knee arthroplasty facilitates restoration of constitutional coronal alignment[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2022;30(2):464–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-06153-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wan X, Su Q, Wang D, et al. Robotic arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty improves preoperative planning and intraoperative decision-making[J]. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021;16(1):670. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-021-02815-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Batailler C, Fernandez A, Swan J, et al. MAKO CT-based robotic arm-assisted system is a reliable procedure for total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021;29(11):3585–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-06283-z.

  26. Almaawi AM, Hutt J, Masse V, et al. The impact of mechanical and restricted kinematic alignment on knee anatomy in total knee Arthroplasty[J]. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(7):2133–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.02.028.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Schiraldi M, Bonzanini G, Chirillo D, et al. Mechanical and kinematic alignment in total knee arthroplasty[J]. Ann Transl Med. 2016;4(7):130. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2016.03.31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Mancino F, Rossi S, Sangaletti R, et al. Increased accuracy in component positioning using an image-less robotic arm system in primary total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective study[J]. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2024;144(1):393–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-023-05062-y.

  29. Hirschmann MT, Moser LB, Amsler F, et al. Phenotyping the knee in young non-osteoarthritic knees shows a wide distribution of femoral and tibial coronal alignment[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019;27(5):1385–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05508-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Dossett HG, Estrada NA, Swartz GJ, et al. A randomised controlled trial of kinematically and mechanically aligned total knee replacements: two-year clinical results[J]. Bone Joint J. 2014;96–B(7):907–13. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.96B7.32812.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tiefenboeck S, Sesselmann S, Taylor D, et al. Preoperative planning of total knee arthroplasty: reliability of axial alignment using a three-dimensional planning approach[J]. Acta Radiol. 2022;63(8):1051–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/02841851211029076.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Huppertz A, Radmer S, Asbach P, et al. Computed tomography for preoperative planning in minimal-invasive total hip arthroplasty: radiation exposure and cost analysis[J]. Eur J Radiol. 2011;78(3):406–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.11.024.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Wako Y, Nakamura J, Miura M, et al. Interobserver and Intraobserver reliability of three-Dimensional Preoperative Planning Software in total hip Arthroplasty[J]. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(2):601–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.08.031.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Dong WU, Xingyu LIU, Yiling ZHANG, et al. Research and application of artificial intelligence based three-dimensional preoperative planning system for total hip arthroplasty[J]. Chin J Reconstr Reconstr Surg. 2020;34(09):1077–84. https://doi.org/10.7507/1002-1892.202005007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Leon-Munoz VJ, Lison-Almagro AJ, Lopez-Lopez M. Planning on CT-Based 3D virtual models can accurately predict the component size for total knee Arthroplasty[J]. J Knee Surg. 2020;33(11):1128–31. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1692645.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kotela A, Lorkowski J, Kucharzewski M et al. Patient-Specific CT-Based Instrumentation versus Conventional Instrumentation in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study on Clinical Outcomes and In-Hospital Data[J]. Biomed Res Int, 2015,2015:165908. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/165908.

  37. Saffarini M, Muller JH, La Barbera G, et al. Inadequacy of computed tomography for pre-operative planning of patellofemoral arthroplasty[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26(5):1485–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4474-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

My deepest gratitude goes first and foremost to Professor Li, my supervisor, for his constant encouragement and guidance. Acknowledgements We thank the patient who contributed to this report, as well as the staff of each department. Thanks to the Department of Sports Medicine in Fujian Province Second People’s Hospital.

Funding

This work did not receive any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sports Medicine, Fujian Province Second People’s Hospital, No.282, Wusi Road, Gu Lou District, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian, China

    Saijiao Lan & Jian Li

  2. Department of Sports Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian, China

    Saijiao Lan & Jian Li

Authors
  1. Saijiao Lan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jian Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Saijiao Lan is responsible for research design, data collection and manuscript generation. Jian Li is a senior author of the surgery and contributed to the design of the study and manuscript editing. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jian Li.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and informed consent

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Fujian Province Second People’s Hospital (SPHFJP-K2022017-02), all patients have explained the treatment process in detail and signed the informed consent. All procedures performed on this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the 1964 Helsinki declaration.

Consent for publication

Not Applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lan, S., Li, J. Assessment of preoperative planning and intraoperative accuracy of the AIKNEE system for total knee arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 25, 562 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-07645-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-07645-1

Keywords

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

ISSN: 1471-2474

Contact us