Marker-based versus model-based radiostereometric analysis of total knee arthroplasty migration: a reanalysis with comparable mean outcomes despite distinct types of measurement error

Forskningsoutput: TidskriftsbidragArtikel i vetenskaplig tidskrift

Standard

Marker-based versus model-based radiostereometric analysis of total knee arthroplasty migration : a reanalysis with comparable mean outcomes despite distinct types of measurement error. / van Hamersveld, Koen T.; Marang–van de Mheen, Perla J.; Koster, Lennard A.; Nelissen, Rob G.H.H.; Toksvig-Larsen, Sören; Kaptein, Bart L.

I: Acta Orthopaedica, 2019.

Forskningsoutput: TidskriftsbidragArtikel i vetenskaplig tidskrift

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Marker-based versus model-based radiostereometric analysis of total knee arthroplasty migration

T2 - a reanalysis with comparable mean outcomes despite distinct types of measurement error

AU - van Hamersveld, Koen T.

AU - Marang–van de Mheen, Perla J.

AU - Koster, Lennard A.

AU - Nelissen, Rob G.H.H.

AU - Toksvig-Larsen, Sören

AU - Kaptein, Bart L.

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - Background and purpose — Pooling data of studies evaluating total knee arthroplasty migration using radiostereometric analysis (RSA) may be compromised when the RSA method used would influence estimated differences between groups. We therefore reanalyzed a marker-based RSA study with model-based RSA to assess possible limitations of each RSA method, including insert micromotions in modular TKA and their effect on estimated group differences. Patients and methods — All patients had received a cemented Triathlon implant (Stryker, Mahwah, NJ, USA) with either an all-polyethylene (n = 29) or a metal-backed (n = 28) tibial component. The latter group was reanalyzed with model-based RSA. Precision of each RSA method was calculated using double examinations. Bland–Altman plots were constructed to determine the limits of agreement between the 2 RSA methods. Polyethylene insert micromotion was quantified by measuring migration with respect to the metal tray. Finally, analyses of the original study were repeated with the model-based RSA results. Results — Systematic differences were found in translations between marker-based and model-based RSA as a result of different reference origins being used for migration calculations. Micromotions of the polyethylene insert within the metal tray were negligibly small. Mean migration results were comparable between marker-based and model-based RSA when using the same reference origin, even though conclusions on individual patients may differ between RSA methods due to various types of measurement error (e.g., marker occlusion and model-fit inaccuracies). Interpretation — At least for the studied TKA design, pooling mean migration data of different RSA methods appears justified. For translations, however, adjustments should be made to correct for differences in reference origin. Migration patterns of individual patients may differ as a result of distinct types of measurement error.

AB - Background and purpose — Pooling data of studies evaluating total knee arthroplasty migration using radiostereometric analysis (RSA) may be compromised when the RSA method used would influence estimated differences between groups. We therefore reanalyzed a marker-based RSA study with model-based RSA to assess possible limitations of each RSA method, including insert micromotions in modular TKA and their effect on estimated group differences. Patients and methods — All patients had received a cemented Triathlon implant (Stryker, Mahwah, NJ, USA) with either an all-polyethylene (n = 29) or a metal-backed (n = 28) tibial component. The latter group was reanalyzed with model-based RSA. Precision of each RSA method was calculated using double examinations. Bland–Altman plots were constructed to determine the limits of agreement between the 2 RSA methods. Polyethylene insert micromotion was quantified by measuring migration with respect to the metal tray. Finally, analyses of the original study were repeated with the model-based RSA results. Results — Systematic differences were found in translations between marker-based and model-based RSA as a result of different reference origins being used for migration calculations. Micromotions of the polyethylene insert within the metal tray were negligibly small. Mean migration results were comparable between marker-based and model-based RSA when using the same reference origin, even though conclusions on individual patients may differ between RSA methods due to various types of measurement error (e.g., marker occlusion and model-fit inaccuracies). Interpretation — At least for the studied TKA design, pooling mean migration data of different RSA methods appears justified. For translations, however, adjustments should be made to correct for differences in reference origin. Migration patterns of individual patients may differ as a result of distinct types of measurement error.

U2 - 10.1080/17453674.2019.1605692

DO - 10.1080/17453674.2019.1605692

M3 - Article

JO - Acta Orthopaedica

JF - Acta Orthopaedica

SN - 1745-3682

ER -