Literature DB >> 30196443

Conventional versus computer-assisted surgery in total knee arthroplasty: comparison at ten years follow-up.

Michele d'Amato1, Andrea Ensini1,2, Alberto Leardini2, Paolo Barbadoro1, Andrea Illuminati1, Claudio Belvedere3,4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Computer-assisted systems (CAS) for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) were expected to result in more accurate prosthesis implantation, better patient outcomes, and longer implant survival when compared to conventional instrumentation (CI). The aim of this study was to compare two groups of patients operated using CAS or CI at ten years follow-up.
METHODS: One hundred twenty TKA patients, 60 using CAS and 60 using CI, were contacted after a decade for follow-up. Eligible patients received radiological examination to assess the lower-limb mechanical axis. They were also clinically assessed using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and the Knee Society Score for Knee (KSS-K) and Function (KSS-F) Scoring. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to assess revisions, not for post-traumatic reasons.
RESULTS: In CAS and CI groups, the lower-limb mechanical axis was 1.7° ± 2.4° and 1.5° ± 2.8°, respectively; corresponding KOOS values were 82.3 ± 14.3 and 78.6 ± 14.4; KSS-K values were 85.9 ± 11.1 and 85.0 ± 9.7; KSS-F values were 82.2 ± 19.3 and 83.8 ± 18. For these assessments, the differences between the two groups were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Two CAS (3.8%) and three CI patients (5.7%) were revised. The Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no significant differences between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were found at long-term follow-up in terms of radiographical-clinical outcomes and of implant survival between TKA operated using CAS or CI.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinical outcome; Computer-aided surgery; Long-term follow-up; Surgical navigation; Total knee arthroplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30196443     DOI: 10.1007/s00264-018-4114-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  34 in total

1.  Do manual cutting guides for total knee arthroplasty introduce systematic error?

Authors:  Erik Hohmann; Kevin Tetsworth
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-08-23       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Hand-held navigation may improve accuracy in minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Satit Thiengwittayaporn; Yupadee Fusakul; Nunnapat Kangkano; Chanintorn Jarupongprapa; Narattaphol Charoenphandhu
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-07-08       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Total Knee Replacement.

Authors:  Søren T Skou; Ewa M Roos; Mogens B Laursen; Michael S Rathleff; Lars Arendt-Nielsen; Ole Simonsen; Sten Rasmussen
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-10-22       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Tibio-femoral and patello-femoral joint kinematics during navigated total knee arthroplasty with patellar resurfacing.

Authors:  C Belvedere; A Ensini; A Leardini; V Dedda; A Feliciangeli; F Cenni; A Timoncini; P Barbadoro; S Giannini
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-01-10       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Computerised navigation of unicondylar knee prostheses: from primary implantation to revision to total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Dominique Saragaglia; Benoit Marques Da Silva; Pierrick Dijoux; Jérémy Cognault; Julia Gaillot; Régis Pailhé
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-09-28       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Results with eight and a half years average follow-up on two hundred and eight e-Motion FP® knee prostheses, fitted using computer navigation for knee osteoarthritis in patients with over ten degrees genu varum.

Authors:  Dominique Saragaglia; Loic Sigwalt; Julia Gaillot; Vincent Morin; Brice Rubens-Duval; Régis Pailhé
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2017-08-22       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Twelve-Year Follow-Up of Navigated Computer-Assisted Versus Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Prospective Randomized Comparative Trial.

Authors:  Johannes Cip; Florian Obwegeser; Thomas Benesch; Christian Bach; Paul Ruckenstuhl; Arno Martin
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2017-12-21       Impact factor: 4.757

8.  Leg axis after computer-navigated total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized trial comparing computer-navigated and manual implantation.

Authors:  Ralf Decking; Yma Markmann; Johannes Fuchs; Wolfhart Puhl; Hanns-Peter Scharf
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 4.757

9.  Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)--development of a self-administered outcome measure.

Authors:  E M Roos; H P Roos; L S Lohmander; C Ekdahl; B D Beynnon
Journal:  J Orthop Sports Phys Ther       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 4.751

10.  The predictive factors of secondary patellar resurfacing in computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. A prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Florent Franck; Hervé Ouanezar; Alexandre Jacquel; Vincent Pibarot; Julien Wegrzyn
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2017-09-09       Impact factor: 3.075

View more
  8 in total

1.  Comparison of custom cutting guides based on three-dimensional computerized CT-scan planning and a conventional ancillary system based on two-dimensional planning in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Elhadi Sariali; Charles Kajetanek; Yves Catonné
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2019-06-21       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  General and specialized Orthopaedics.

Authors:  Marius M Scarlat
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Surgeons and robots.

Authors:  Andreas F Mavrogenis; Marius M Scarlat
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Total knee arthroplasty in Italy: reflections from the last fifteen years and projections for the next thirty.

Authors:  Emilio Romanini; Francesco Decarolis; Ilaria Luzi; Gustavo Zanoli; Michele Venosa; Paola Laricchiuta; Eugenio Carrani; Marina Torre
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-10-06       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  The patient results and satisfaction of knee arthroplasty in a validated grading system.

Authors:  Christiaan Rudolf Oosthuizen; Catherine Van Der Straeten; Innocent Maposa; Christian Hugo Snyckers; Duwayne Peter Vermaak; Sebastian Magobotha
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2019-09-12       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 6.  Clinical outcomes associated with robotic and computer-navigated total knee arthroplasty: a machine learning-augmented systematic review.

Authors:  Quinlan D Buchlak; Joe Clair; Nazanin Esmaili; Arshad Barmare; Siva Chandrasekaran
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2021-06-25

7.  Comparison of iASSIST Navigation System with Conventional Techniques in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes.

Authors:  Jun-Tan Li; Xiang Gao; Xu Li
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2019-11-22       Impact factor: 2.071

8.  How Large a Study Is Needed to Detect TKA Revision Rate Reductions Attributable to Robotic or Navigated Technologies? A Simulation-based Power Analysis.

Authors:  Matthew D Hickey; Carolyn Anglin; Bassam Masri; Antony J Hodgson
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-11-01       Impact factor: 4.755

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.