Kiran Singisetti1, Karthikeyan Muthumayandi2, Zaid Abual-Rub3,4, David Weir5. 1. University Hospital of North Durham, Durham, DH1 5TW, UK. kiransingisetti@gmail.com. 2. School of Sports and Exercise Sciences, University of Kent, Kent, UK. k.muthumayandi@kent.ac.uk. 3. Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 4LP, UK. Zaid_aburub@yahoo.com. 4. Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Queen Victoria Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 1LP, UK. Zaid_aburub@yahoo.com. 5. Freeman Hospital, Freeman Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. david.weir@nuth.nhs.uk.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Navigation technique for total knee replacement has been shown to improve accuracy of prosthesis alignment in several studies. The purpose was to compare the patient-reported outcome measures in primary total knee replacement (TKR) using navigation versus conventional surgical technique at 1- and 2-year follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected patient-reported outcome data for 351 consecutively performed primary TKR was included in the study. The study group (N = 113) included patients who had Triathlon TKR using articular surface mounted (ASM Stryker) navigation technique and control group (N = 238) included patients who had Triathlon TKR using conventional jig. In addition to the WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index) and SF-36 (Medical Outcomes Trust Short Form-36), a short self-report questionnaire evaluating the level of satisfaction, quality of life and whether patients would undergo knee replacement again. RESULTS: WOMAC: no significant difference between the groups was noted in mean WOMAC pain, function and stiffness scores at 1- and 2-year follow-up. SF-36: no significant difference between the groups was seen except in the physical function component of score at 1 year (p = 0.019). Navigation group mean 56.78 (CI 51.06-62.5) versus conventional group mean 48.34 (44.68-52.01) but this difference was not observed at 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The overall patient-reported outcome scores improved after total knee replacement but appear to be comparable in both groups at 1- and 2-year follow-up.
INTRODUCTION: Navigation technique for total knee replacement has been shown to improve accuracy of prosthesis alignment in several studies. The purpose was to compare the patient-reported outcome measures in primary total knee replacement (TKR) using navigation versus conventional surgical technique at 1- and 2-year follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected patient-reported outcome data for 351 consecutively performed primary TKR was included in the study. The study group (N = 113) included patients who had Triathlon TKR using articular surface mounted (ASM Stryker) navigation technique and control group (N = 238) included patients who had Triathlon TKR using conventional jig. In addition to the WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index) and SF-36 (Medical Outcomes Trust Short Form-36), a short self-report questionnaire evaluating the level of satisfaction, quality of life and whether patients would undergo knee replacement again. RESULTS: WOMAC: no significant difference between the groups was noted in mean WOMAC pain, function and stiffness scores at 1- and 2-year follow-up. SF-36: no significant difference between the groups was seen except in the physical function component of score at 1 year (p = 0.019). Navigation group mean 56.78 (CI 51.06-62.5) versus conventional group mean 48.34 (44.68-52.01) but this difference was not observed at 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The overall patient-reported outcome scores improved after total knee replacement but appear to be comparable in both groups at 1- and 2-year follow-up.
Entities:
Keywords:
Conventional; Functional outcome; Navigation; Patient-reported outcomes; Total knee replacement
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
Authors: Ian A Harris; David P Kirwan; Yi Peng; Peter L Lewis; Richard N de Steiger; Stephen E Graves Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-05-31 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Daniel Hernández-Vaquero; Alfonso Noriega-Fernandez; Ivan Perez-Coto; Manuel A Sandoval García; Andres A Sierra-Pereira; Sergio Roncero-Gonzalez; Jose Manuel Fernandez-Carreira Journal: J Int Med Res Date: 2016-11-12 Impact factor: 1.671