Abstract
Radiostereometric analysis can be used for computing movement of a tibial baseplate relative to the tibia (termed migration) to determine stability of fixation. Quantifying migration in six degrees of freedom requires establishing a coordinate system in which to express the movement. Establishing consistent migration directions among patients and baseplate designs remains challenging. Deviations in imaging alignment (tibia/baseplate alignment during image acquisition) and surgical alignment (baseplate alignment on tibia) will affect computed migrations when using the conventional globally-aligned baseplate coordinate system (BCS) (defined by calibration box). Computing migration using a local BCS (defined by baseplate) may be preferrable. This paper (1) summarizes the migration equations when using a globally-aligned versus local BCS, (2) proposes a method for defining a local BCS, and (3) demonstrates differences in the two BCSs for an example patient whose baseplate has rotational deviations due to imaging or surgical alignments. Differences in migration for the two BCSs ranged from about ±0.5 mm in translations and −0.4 deg to 0.7 deg in rotations. Differences were largest for deviations in internal-external rotation and smallest for deviations in varus-valgus rotation. An example demonstrated that the globally-aligned BCS resulted in migration being quantified as subsidence instead of liftoff, thereby changing fundamental interpretations. Because migrations computed using a local BCS are independent of imaging and surgical alignments and instead characterize migration using baseplate features, a local BCS enhances consistency in migration directions among patients and baseplate designs relative to the interface in which fixation may be compromised.
