Literature DB >> 32742210

Utilization and Short-Term Outcomes of Computer Navigation in Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.

Christopher N Carender1, David E DeMik1, Nicholas A Bedard1, Alan G Shamrock1, Qiang An1, Timothy S Brown1.   

Abstract

Background: The use of navigation remains a controversial topic in knee arthroplasty. The purpose of this study is to evaluate current rates of utilization of navigation in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) in the United States, as well as the incidence of short-term complications and operative times between navigated and non-navigated UKA.
Methods: A query of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (NSQIP) database was used to identify cases of primary UKA during years 2006-2017. Additional common procedural terminology (CPT) codes were used to identify cases in which navigation was utilized. Operative time, length of stay, and short-term outcomes were compared. Propensity score matching was used to minimize differences in demographics and comorbidities between the navigation and non-navigation cohorts.
Results: A total of 10,586 cases of UKA were identified; 343 of these cases (3.2%) utilized navigation. The unadjusted rate of any complication for the entire cohort was 3.6%. Navigated UKA had mean operative times 8 minutes longer than non-navigated UKA (92.1 min vs. 84.3 min; p<0.001). There was no difference in overall complication rates between the matched navigated (3.5%) and non-navigated (3.2%) cohorts (p=0.65). There was no difference in rates of readmission (0.31% vs. 0.58%; p=0.31), reoperation (0.29% vs. 0.29%; p=1.00), and mean length of stay (1.3 ± 1.6 days vs. 1.2 ± 1.9 days; p=0.15).
Conclusion: UKA utilizing navigation had a mean operative time 8 minutes longer than non-navigated UKA. We found no difference in rates of short-term complications, readmission, reoperation, or mean length of stay between navigated and non-navigated UKA.Level of Evidence: III.
Copyright © The Iowa Orthopaedic Journal 2020.

Keywords:  computer; navigation; outcomes; unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32742210      PMCID: PMC7368524     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Iowa Orthop J        ISSN: 1541-5457


  37 in total

1.  Unicompartmental knee prosthesis implantation with a non-image-based navigation system: rationale, technique, case-control comparative study with a conventional instrumented implantation.

Authors:  Jean-Yves Jenny; Cyril Boeri
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2002-12-18       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Sequential versus automated cutting guides in computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Dimitrios Koulalis; Padhraig F O'Loughlin; Christopher Plaskos; Daniel Kendoff; Michael B Cross; Andrew D Pearle
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2010-09-15       Impact factor: 2.199

3.  Impact of hospital volume on the economic value of computer navigation for total knee replacement.

Authors:  James D Slover; Anna N A Tosteson; Kevin J Bozic; Harry E Rubash; Henrik Malchau
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Computer-assisted FluoroGuide navigation of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Burton Ma; John Rudan; Raja Chakravertty; Heather Grant
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 2.089

5.  Navigated vs Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty: Is There a Difference in the Rate of Respiratory Complications and Transfusions?

Authors:  Emmanouil Liodakis; John Antoniou; David J Zukor; Olga L Huk; Laura M Epure; Stephane G Bergeron
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2016-04-04       Impact factor: 4.757

Review 6.  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

7.  The long-term benefit of computer-assisted surgical navigation in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Arpad Konyves; Charles A Willis-Owen; Anthony J Spriggins
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2010-12-31       Impact factor: 2.359

8.  Trends in computer navigation and robotic assistance for total knee arthroplasty in the United States: an analysis of patient and hospital factors.

Authors:  Joseph K Antonios; Shane Korber; Lakshmanan Sivasundaram; Cory Mayfield; Hyunwoo Paco Kang; Daniel A Oakes; Nathanael D Heckmann
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2019-03-12

9.  Robot-Assisted Navigation versus Computer-Assisted Navigation in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: Efficiency and Accuracy.

Authors:  Tanner C Clark; Frank H Schmidt
Journal:  ISRN Orthop       Date:  2013-06-24

10.  Analysis and Treatment of Complications after Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Kyung Tae Kim; Song Lee; Jae Il Lee; Jin Woo Kim
Journal:  Knee Surg Relat Res       Date:  2016-02-29
View more
  1 in total

1.  Pinless Navigation in Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Sarah Keuntje-Perka; Philipp von Roth; Michael Worlicek; Matthias Koch; Volker Alt; Moritz Kaiser
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-05-30       Impact factor: 4.241

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.