Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2022; 35(11): 1260-1267
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1722628
Original Article

Use of a Spacer Block Tool for Assessment of Joint Line Position during Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty

Harun R. Gungor 
1   Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Faculty of Medicine, Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey
,
Nusret Ok 
1   Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Faculty of Medicine, Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

There is a tendency of orthopaedic surgeons to elevate joint line (JL) in revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA). Here, we ascertain the use of the spacer block tool (SBT) to determine JL more accurately for less experienced RTKA surgeons. To perform more precise restoration of JL, an SBT with markers was developed and produced using computer software and three-dimensional printers. The study was planned prospectively to include patients who received either condylar constrained or rotating hinge RTKA between January 2016 and December 2019. To determine JL, distance from fibular head (FH), adductor tubercle (AT), and medial epicondyle (ME) were measured on contralateral knee preoperative radiographs and on operated knee postoperative radiographs. Patients were randomized and grouped according to the technique of JL reconstruction. In Group 1, conventional methods by evaluating aforementioned landmarks and preoperative contralateral knee measurements were used to determine JL, whereas in Group 2, the SBT was used. The main outcome measure was the JL change in revised knee postoperatively in contrast to contralateral knee to compare effective restoration of JL between the groups. Twenty-five patients in Group 1 (3 males, 22 females, 72 years, body mass index [BMI] 32.04 ± 4.45) and 20 patients (7 males, 13 females, 74 years, BMI 30.12 ± 5.02) in Group 2 were included in the study. JL measurements for the whole group were FH-JL = 18.3 ± 3.8 mm, AT-JL = 45.8 ± 4.6 mm, and ME-JL = 27.1 ± 2.8 mm preoperatively, and FH-JL = 20.7 ± 4.2 mm, AT-JL = 43.4 ± 5.2 mm, and ME-JL = 24.7 ± 3.1 mm postoperatively. JL level differences in reference to FH, AT, and ME in Group 1 were 3.6 ± 3.1, 3.6 ± 3.5, and 3.4 ± 3.1 mm, respectively, and in Group 2 were 1.0 ± .0.9, 1.3 ± 1.3, and 1.1 ± 1.3 mm, respectively. There were statistically significant differences between the two groups in JL changes referenced to all of the specific landmarks (p < 0.05). The use of the SBT helped restore JL effectively in our cohort of RTKA patients. Therefore, this tool may become a useful and inexpensive gadget for less experienced and low-volume RTKA surgeons.

Keywords

revision total knee arthroplasty - joint line - spacer block - fibular head - medial epicondyle

Note

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


Ethical Approval

The study has been performed in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki and has been approved by Pamukkale University Clinical Research Ethics Committee (No: 60116787 020/8819).




Publication History

Received: 25 April 2020

Accepted: 29 November 2020

Article published online:
20 January 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Figgie III HE, Goldberg VM, Heiple KG, Moller III HS, Gordon NH. The influence of tibial-patellofemoral location on function of the knee in patients with the posterior stabilized condylar knee prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1986; 68 (07) 1035-1040
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Han HS, Yu CH, Shin N, Won S, Lee MC. Femoral joint line restoration is a major determinant of postoperative range of motion in revision total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2019; 27 (07) 2090-2095
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Khakharia S, Scuderi GR. Restoration of the distal femur impacts patellar height in revision TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470 (01) 205-210
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Matz J, Lanting BA, Howard JL. Understanding the patellofemoral joint in total knee arthroplasty. Can J Surg 2019; 62 (01) 57-65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Partington PF, Sawhney J, Rorabeck CH, Barrack RL, Moore J. Joint line restoration after revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1999; (367) 165-171
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Pourzal R, Cip J, Rad E. et al. Joint line elevation and tibial slope are associated with increased polyethylene wear in cruciate-retaining total knee replacement. J Orthop Res 2020; 38 (07) 1596-1606
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Sachdeva S, Baker JF, Bauwens JE. et al. Can revision TKA patients achieve similar clinical functional improvement compared to primaries?. J Knee Surg 2020; 33 (12) 1219-1224
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 van Lieshout WAM, Duijnisveld BJ, Koenraadt KLM, Elmans LHGJ, Kerkhoffs GMMJ, van Geenen RCI. Adequate joint line restoration and good preliminary clinical outcomes after total knee arthroplasty using the Flexion First Balancer technique. Knee 2019; 26 (03) 794-802
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 van Lieshout WAM, Valkering KP, Koenraadt KLM, van Etten-Jamaludin FS, Kerkhoffs GMMJ, van Geenen RCI. The negative effect of joint line elevation after total knee arthroplasty on outcome. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2019; 27 (05) 1477-1486
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Babazadeh S, Dowsey MM, Vasimalla MG, Stoney JD, Choong PFM. Gap balancing sacrifices joint-line maintenance to improve gap symmetry: 5-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (01) 75-78
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Minoda Y, Sugama R, Ohta Y, Ueyama H, Takemura S, Nakamura H. Joint line elevation is not associated with mid-flexion laxity in patients with varus osteoarthritis after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2020; 28 (10) 3226-3231
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Yoshii I, Whiteside LA, White SE, Milliano MT. Influence of prosthetic joint line position on knee kinematics and patellar position. J Arthroplasty 1991; 6 (02) 169-177
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Fornalski S, McGarry MH, Bui CN, Kim WC, Lee TQ. Biomechanical effects of joint line elevation in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2012; 27 (08) 824-829
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 van Duren BH, Pandit H, Pechon P, Hart A, Murray DW. The role of the patellar tendon angle and patellar flexion angle in the interpretation of sagittal plane kinematics of the knee after knee arthroplasty: a modelling analysis. Knee 2018; 25 (02) 240-248
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Bellemans J. Restoring the joint line in revision TKA: does it matter?. Knee 2004; 11 (01) 3-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Dennis DA. A stepwise approach to revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22 (4, suppl 1): 32-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Laskin RS. Joint line position restoration during revision total knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002; (404) 169-171
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Fan A, Xu T, Li X. et al. Using anatomical landmarks to calculate the normal joint line position in Chinese people: an observational study. J Orthop Surg Res 2018; 13 (01) 261
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Iacono F, Lo Presti M, Bruni D. et al. The adductor tubercle: a reliable landmark for analysing the level of the femorotibial joint line. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2013; 21 (12) 2725-2729
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Iacono F, Raspugli GF, Bruni D. et al. The adductor tubercle as an important landmark to determine the joint line level in total knee arthroplasty: from radiographs to surgical theatre. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2014; 22 (12) 3034-3038
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Iacono F, Raspugli GF, Filardo G. et al. The adductor tubercle: an important landmark to determine the joint line level in revision total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2016; 24 (10) 3212-3217
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Lutz B, Trubrich A, Kappe T, Reichel H, Bieger R. The epicondylar ratio can be reliably used on X-ray of the knee to determine the joint line. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2018; 138 (09) 1287-1292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Ozkurt B, Sen T, Cankaya D, Kendir S, Basarır K, Tabak Y. The medial and lateral epicondyle as a reliable landmark for intra-operative joint line determination in revision knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint Res 2016; 5 (07) 280-286
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Pereira GC, von Kaeppler E, Alaia MJ. et al. Calculating the position of the joint line of the knee using anatomical landmarks. Orthopedics 2016; 39 (06) 381-386
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Romero J, Seifert B, Reinhardt O, Ziegler O, Kessler O. A useful radiologic method for preoperative joint-line determination in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (05) 1279-1283
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Yeh KT, Chen IH, Wang CC, Wu WT, Liu KL, Peng CH. The adductor tubercle can be a radiographic landmark for joint line position determination: an anatomic-radiographic correlation study. J Orthop Surg Res 2019; 14 (01) 189
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Xiao J, Wang S, Chen W, Yang Y, Liu T, Zuo J. A study to assess the accuracy of adductor tubercle as a reliable landmark used to determine the joint line of the knee in a Chinese population. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (04) 1351-1355
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Servien E, Viskontas D, Giuffrè BM, Coolican MR, Parker DA. Reliability of bony landmarks for restoration of the joint line in revision knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2008; 16 (03) 263-269
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Havet E, Gabrion A, Leiber-Wackenheim F, Vernois J, Olory B, Mertl P. Radiological study of the knee joint line position measured from the fibular head and proximal tibial landmarks. Surg Radiol Anat 2007; 29 (04) 285-289
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Maderbacher G, Keshmiri A, Zeman F, Grifka J, Baier C. Assessing joint line positions by means of the contralateral knee: a new approach for planning knee revision surgery?. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2015; 23 (11) 3244-3250
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Clavé A, Le Henaff G, Roger T, Maisongrosse P, Mabit C, Dubrana F. Joint line level in revision total knee replacement: assessment and functional results with an average of seven years follow-up. Int Orthop 2016; 40 (08) 1655-1662
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Kowalczewski JB, Labey L, Chevalier Y, Okon T, Innocenti B, Bellemans J. Does joint line elevation after revision knee arthroplasty affect tibio-femoral kinematics, contact pressure or collateral ligament lengths? An in vitro analysis. Arch Med Sci 2015; 11 (02) 311-318
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar