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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.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)
Import DICOM images and reconstruct the knee joint in three-dimensions.
-
(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)
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.
Data collection
-
(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.
-
(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.
-
(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).
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)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-07645-1