Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent developments in intra-operative sensor technology provide surgeons with predictive and real-time feedback on joint balance. It remains unknown, however, whether these technologies are better suited to femur-first or tibia-first workflows. This study investigates the balance accuracy, precision and early patient outcomes between the femur-first and tibial-first workflows using a digital gap-balancing tool. METHODS: One-hundred six patients had posterior cruciate ligament sacrificing total knee arthroplasty using a digital joint tensioner. The participants were divided into 4 groups with different visibility to balance data 1) Femur-first blinded data, 2) Femur-first not blinded data, 3) Tibia-first blinded data, 4) Tibia-first not blinded data with predictive balancing. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and University of California at Los Angeles activity level were recorded at 1-year. RESULTS: Group 4 reported less midflexion imbalance (40°) compared to all other groups (1: 1.5 mm, 2: 1.7 mm, 3: 1.6 mm, 4: 1.0 mm, P < .031) and reduced variance compared to all other groups at 40° and 90° (P < .012), resulting in an increased frequency of joints balanced within 2 mm throughout flexion in group 4 (1: 69%, 2: 65%, 3: 67%, 4: 91%, P < .006). No differences were found between 3-month, 6-month, or 1-year outcome scores between technique. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in balance were observed in midflexion instability and balance variability throughout flexion when a tibia-first approach in combination with a digital balancing tool was used. The combination of a digital balancing tool and a tibia-first approach allowed a target joint balance to be achieved more accurately compared to a non-sensor augmented or femur-first approach.