PURPOSE: Computer-assisted knee surgery has become established in routine clinical practice. Still, there is no study investigating midterm clinical outcome after five to seven years postoperatively. We aimed to test the hypothesis that there is no difference either for subjective [Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) scores] or for objective (Knee Society Score, degree of flexion) criteria between computer-assisted total knee replacement (TKR) and freehand TKR after 5.6-7.3 years. METHODS: We performed a matched-pair analysis; 100 patients who received a primary TKR were investigated after a median follow-up of 6.25 years. Group A was operated on with the support of a computer system, while surgery on patients in group B was performed with the freehand technique. We determined WOMAC Score, Knee Society Score and degree of flexion. RESULTS: Overall we found similar results for WOMAC Score [group A: 42.98 (SD 13.80); group B: 41.54 (SD 15.01; p = 0.62)], Knee Society Score [group A: 168.20 (SD 21.94); group B: 166.60 (SD 21.44; p = 0.71)] and range of motion [group A: 106° (SD 9.19); group B 107° (SD 7.44; p = 0.62)]. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences in midterm clinical outcome were found after TKR performed in the freehand vs computer-assisted technique.
PURPOSE: Computer-assisted knee surgery has become established in routine clinical practice. Still, there is no study investigating midterm clinical outcome after five to seven years postoperatively. We aimed to test the hypothesis that there is no difference either for subjective [Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) scores] or for objective (Knee Society Score, degree of flexion) criteria between computer-assisted total knee replacement (TKR) and freehand TKR after 5.6-7.3 years. METHODS: We performed a matched-pair analysis; 100 patients who received a primary TKR were investigated after a median follow-up of 6.25 years. Group A was operated on with the support of a computer system, while surgery on patients in group B was performed with the freehand technique. We determined WOMAC Score, Knee Society Score and degree of flexion. RESULTS: Overall we found similar results for WOMAC Score [group A: 42.98 (SD 13.80); group B: 41.54 (SD 15.01; p = 0.62)], Knee Society Score [group A: 168.20 (SD 21.94); group B: 166.60 (SD 21.44; p = 0.71)] and range of motion [group A: 106° (SD 9.19); group B 107° (SD 7.44; p = 0.62)]. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences in midterm clinical outcome were found after TKR performed in the freehand vs computer-assisted technique.
Authors: Yogeesh D Kamat; Kamran M Aurakzai; Ajeya R Adhikari; Daniel Matthews; Yegappan Kalairajah; Richard E Field Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2008-11-26 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: C Lüring; F Oczipka; L Perlick; M Tingart; J Grifka; H Bäthis Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2008-10-22 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: C J Bachmeier; L M March; M J Cross; H M Lapsley; K L Tribe; B G Courtenay; P M Brooks Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Alberto Carli; Ahmed Aoude; Avishai Reuven; Bogdan Matache; John Antoniou; David J Zukor Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 2.089
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
Authors: Andrew G Kim; Zachary Bernhard; Alexander J Acuña; Victoria S Wu; Atul F Kamath Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2022-08-19 Impact factor: 4.114