Literature DB >> 16214014

Computer assisted navigation in total knee arthroplasty: comparison with conventional methods.

Kevin C Anderson1, Knute C Buehler, David C Markel.   

Abstract

The success of knee arthroplasty is dependent on many factors. Postoperative extremity and component alignment are important determinants of outcome and longevity. Malalignment (>3 degrees ) results in higher failure rates. Computer-assisted navigation devices were developed to improve implant positioning. This study evaluated the early outcomes of a high-volume fellowship-trained surgeon relative to component positioning and limb alignment using an image-free navigation system. The navigation group consisted of 116 consecutive patients, and the conventional group consisted of 51 consecutive patients. The postoperative mechanical axis was within 3 degrees of neutral mechanical alignment in 95% of the navigation cases vs 84% of the conventional cases (P < .02). The range of the alignment and component position measurements narrowed, and the undesired outliers decreased. Accuracy was improved with navigation. Navigation was a viable device to improve the outcome of total knee arthroplasty relative to limb and component alignment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16214014     DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2005.05.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Arthroplasty        ISSN: 0883-5403            Impact factor:   4.757


  54 in total

Review 1.  Computer assisted navigation in knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Dae Kyung Bae; Sang Jun Song
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2011-12-01

2.  No difference between tibia-first and femur-first techniques in TKA using computer-assisted surgery.

Authors:  Roland Becker; Markus Malzdorf; Christian Stärke; Pirtkien Randolf; Christoph Lohmann
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2012-02-25       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  Robotic-assisted TKA reduces postoperative alignment outliers and improves gap balance compared to conventional TKA.

Authors:  Eun-Kyoo Song; Jong-Keun Seon; Ji-Hyeon Yim; Nathan A Netravali; William L Bargar
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Imageless computer assisted versus conventional total knee replacement. A Bayesian meta-analysis of 23 comparative studies.

Authors:  Yaron S Brin; Vassilios S Nikolaou; Lawrence Joseph; David J Zukor; John Antoniou
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2010-04-08       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 5.  [The foundations of computer assisted surgery].

Authors:  F Langlotz; L-P Nolte; M Tannast
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 1.087

6.  [Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty and navigation - a logical combination?].

Authors:  C Lüring; M Tingart; J Beckmann; L Perlick; J Grifka
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 1.087

7.  Computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty versus the conventional technique: how precise is navigation in clinical routine?

Authors:  Markus Tingart; Christian Lüring; Holger Bäthis; Johannes Beckmann; Joachim Grifka; Lars Perlick
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2007-09-26       Impact factor: 4.342

8.  Instrumented measurements of knee laxity: KT-1000 versus navigation.

Authors:  Edoardo Monaco; Luca Labianca; Barbara Maestri; Angelo De Carli; Fabio Conteduca; Andrea Ferretti
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2009-02-24       Impact factor: 4.342

9.  Differences between sagittal femoral mechanical and distal reference axes should be considered in navigated TKA.

Authors:  Byung June Chung; Yeon Gwi Kang; Chong Bum Chang; Sung Ju Kim; Tae Kyun Kim
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-02-26       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Image fusion for computer-assisted bone tumor surgery.

Authors:  Kwok Chuen Wong; Shekhar Madhuker Kumta; Gregory Ernest Antonio; Lung Fung Tse
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-07-22       Impact factor: 4.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.