Literature DB >> 21235810

Navigation of total knee arthroplasty: rotation of components and clinical results in a prospectively randomized study.

Jan Schmitt1, Carsten Hauk, Heino Kienapfel, Michael Pfeiffer, Turgay Efe, Susanne Fuchs-Winkelmann, Thomas J Heyse.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Navigation was introduced into total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to improve accuracy of component position, function and survival of implants. This study was designed to assess the outcome of navigated TKA in comparison with conventional implantation with the focus on rotational component position and clinical mid-term results.
METHODS: In a prospectively randomized single-blinded approach, 90 patients with primary gonarthrosis were assigned to three different groups. Thirty patients each were assigned to NexGen LPS without and with navigation (groups 1 and 2), and 30 patients to navigation with the Stryker Scorpio PS (group 3). The navigation system used was the imageless Stryker KneeTrac, version 1.0. Clinical outcome was assessed by a blinded observer applying the Knee Society Score (KSS) and a visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain. CT scans and radiographs were conducted prior to and 12 weeks after index surgery.
RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients were available for clinical evaluation at 3 ± 0.4 years follow-up. Four implants had to be revised for early loosening or infection (4.4%). Four patients had died and three patients were not able to follow the invitation for clinical assessment. Functional results in the KSS were significantly lower after navigated TKA. Operation time and incisions with navigation were significantly longer. Significantly less radiological outliers with navigation were found for coronal alignment of the femur, only.
CONCLUSION: In this series, no beneficial effect for navigation in TKA could be shown assessing clinical data, as functional results in the presented series seemed to be lower after first generation navigated TKA. The clinical mid- to long-term value of navigation remains to be evaluated in larger patient series or meta-analyses at longer follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS 00000430.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21235810      PMCID: PMC3025928          DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-12-16

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord        ISSN: 1471-2474            Impact factor:   2.362


  30 in total

1.  Computer-assisted navigation in total knee replacement: results of an initial experience in thirty-five patients.

Authors:  S David Stulberg; Peter Loan; Vineet Sarin
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 5.284

2.  Computer-assisted knee arthroplasty versus a conventional jig-based technique. A randomised, prospective trial.

Authors:  S K Chauhan; R G Scott; W Breidahl; R J Beaver
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2004-04

3.  Low reproducibility of the intra-operative measurement of the transepicondylar axis during total knee replacement.

Authors:  Jean-Yves Jenny; Cyril Boeri
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  2004-02

4.  [The accuracy of palpation from orientation points for the navigated implantation of knee prostheses].

Authors:  R Fuiko; B Kotten; R Zettl; P Ritschl
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 1.087

5.  Total knee arthroplasty implanted with and without kinematic navigation.

Authors:  R Hart; M Janecek; A Chaker; P Bucek
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2003-08-26       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Computer assisted knee replacement.

Authors:  S L Delp; S D Stulberg; B Davies; F Picard; F Leitner
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system.

Authors:  J N Insall; L D Dorr; R D Scott; W N Scott
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1989-11       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Determining the rotational alignment of the femoral component in total knee arthroplasty using the epicondylar axis.

Authors:  R A Berger; H E Rubash; M J Seel; W H Thompson; L S Crossett
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Insall Award paper. Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today?

Authors:  Peter F Sharkey; William J Hozack; Richard H Rothman; Shani Shastri; Sidney M Jacoby
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  [CT analysis of leg alignment after conventional vs. navigated knee prosthesis implantation. Initial results of a controlled, prospective and randomized study].

Authors:  M Oberst; C Bertsch; S Würstlin; U Holz
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 1.000

View more
  23 in total

1.  Accuracy of manual instrumentation of tibial cutting guide in total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  R Iorio; G Bolle; F Conteduca; L Valeo; J Conteduca; D Mazza; A Ferretti
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2012-04-24       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 2.  Alignment outcomes in navigated total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yonghui Fu; Mingming Wang; Yifeng Liu; Qin Fu
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-10-15       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 3.  Computer Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty: Does it Make a Difference?

Authors:  Emil G Haritinian; Ashvin L Pimpalnerkar
Journal:  Maedica (Buchar)       Date:  2013-06

4.  Alignment for total knee replacement: a comparison of kinematic axis versus mechanical axis techniques. A cadaver study.

Authors:  Michael Nogler; William Hozack; Dermot Collopy; Eckart Mayr; Gregory Deirmengian; Kathrin Sekyra
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-08-14       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 5.  Does computer-assisted surgery improve postoperative leg alignment and implant positioning following total knee arthroplasty? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials?

Authors:  Tao Cheng; Song Zhao; Xiaochun Peng; Xianlong Zhang
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-07-06       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 6.  Computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty is currently of no proven clinical benefit: a systematic review.

Authors:  R Stephen J Burnett; Robert L Barrack
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 7.  [Update on navigation in total knee arthroplasty. Where are we today and what lies in the future?].

Authors:  T Renkawitz; S Winkler; M Weber; F von Kunow; J Grifka; C Baier
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 8.  Current state of computer navigation and robotics in unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jelle P van der List; Harshvardhan Chawla; Leo Joskowicz; Andrew D Pearle
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-09-06       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 9.  Current concepts and future perspectives in computer-assisted navigated total knee replacement.

Authors:  Tomoyuki Matsumoto; Naoki Nakano; John E Lawrence; Vikas Khanduja
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-05-12       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  [Total knee arthroplasty with the use of patient specific instruments. The VISIONAIRE system].

Authors:  C O Tibesku
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 1.087

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.