Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Navigation-assisted versus conventional total knee replacement: no difference in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at 1 and 2 years

  • Knee Arthroplasty
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Siston RA, Giori NJ, Goodman SB, Delp SL (2007) Surgical navigation for total knee arthroplasty: a perspective. J Biomech 40(4):728–735

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Stulberg SD, Loan P, Sarin V (2002) Computer-assisted navigation in total knee replacement: results of an initial experience in thirty-five patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-A(Suppl 2):90–98

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW et al (1988) Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 15(12):1833–1840

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30(6):473–483

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Escobar A, Quintana JM et al (2007) Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after total knee replacement. Osteoarthr Cartil 15(3):273–280

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mahomed N, Gandhi R, Daltroy L, Katz JN (2011) The self-administered patient satisfaction scale for primary hip and knee arthroplasty. Arthritis 2011:591253

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Australian joint registry 2013 report. https://aoanjrr.dmac.adelaide.edu.au/documents/10180/127202/Annual%20Report%202013?version=1.2&t=1385685288617

  8. National joint registry 2014 report. http://www.njrcentre.org.uk/njrcentre/Portals/0/Documents/England/Reports/11th_annual_report/NJR%2011th%20Annual%20Report%202014.pdf

  9. Swedish knee arthroplasty register 2013 report. http://www.myknee.se/pdf/SKAR2013_Eng.pdf

  10. Anderson KC, Buehler KC, Markel DC (2005) Computer assisted navigation in total knee arthroplasty: comparison with conventional methods. J Arthroplast 20(Suppl):132–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chauhan SK, Clark GW, Lloyd S, Scott RG, Breidahl W, Sikorski JM (2004) Computer-assisted total knee replacement. A controlled cadaver study using a multi-parameter quantitative CT assessment of alignment (the Perth CT protocol). J Bone Joint Surg Br 86(6):818–823

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rosenberger RE, Hoser C, Quirbach S, Attal R, Hennerbichler A, Fink C (2008) Improved accuracy of component alignment with the implementation of image-free navigation in total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16(3):249–257

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Decking R, Markmann Y, Fuchs J, Puhl W, Scharf HP (2005) Leg axis after computer-navigated total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized trial comparing computer-navigated and manual implantation. J Arthroplast 20(3):282–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chauhan SK, Scott RG, Breidahl W, Beaver RJ (2004) Computer-assisted knee arthroplasty versus a conventional jig-based technique: a randomised, prospective trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89-B:327–377

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ritter MA, Davis KE, Meding JB, Pierson JL, Berend ME, Malinzak RA (2011) The effect of alignment and BMI on failure of total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(17):1588–1596

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Matziolis G, Krocker D, Weiss U, Tohtz S, Perka C (2007) A prospective, randomized study of computer-assisted and conventional total knee arthroplasty. Three-dimensional evaluation of implant alignment and rotation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(2):236–243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Parratte S, Pagnano MW, Trousdale RT, Berry DJ (2010) Effect of postoperative mechanical axis alignment on the 15-year survival of modern, cemented total knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92:2143–2149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kim YH, Park JW, Kim JS (2012) Computer-navigated versus conventional total knee arthroplasty a prospective randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94(22):2017–2024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hoffart HE, Langenstein E, Vasak N (2012) A prospective study comparing the functional outcome of computer-assisted and conventional total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94(2):194–199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pang HN, Yeo SJ, Chong HC, Chin PL, Ong J, Lo NN (2011) Computer-assisted gap balancing technique improves outcome in total knee arthroplasty, compared with conventional measured resection technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19(9):1496–1503

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cheng T, Pan XY, Mao X, Zhang GY, Zhang XL (2012) Little clinical advantage of computer-assisted navigation over conventional instrumentation in primary total knee arthroplasty at early follow-up. Knee 19(4):237–245

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Burnett RS, Barrack RL (2013) Computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty is currently of no proven clinical benefit: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(1):264–276

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hoppe S, Mainzer JD, Frauchiger L, Ballmer PM, Hess R, Zumstein MA (2012) More accurate component alignment in navigated total knee arthroplasty has no clinical benefit at 5-year follow-up. Acta Orthop 83(6):629–633

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Allen CL, Hooper GJ, Oram BJ, Wells JE (2014) Does computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty improve the overall component position and patient function? Int Orthop 38(2):251–257

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lad DG, Thilak J, Thadi M (2013) Component alignment and functional outcome following computer assisted and jig based total knee arthroplasty. Indian J Orthop 47(1):77–82

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Harvie P, Sloan K, Beaver RJ (2012) Computer navigation vs conventional total knee arthroplasty: five-year functional results of a prospective randomized trial. J Arthroplast 27(5):667.e1–672.e1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hernández-Vaquero D, Suarez-Vazquez A, Iglesias-Fernandez S (2011) Can computer assistance improve the clinical and functional scores in total knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(12):3436–3442

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ballas R, Philippot R, Cartier JL, Boyer B, Farizon F (2013) Computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty: impact of the surgeon’s experience on the component placement. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 133(3):397–403

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kalairajah Y, Simpson D, Cossey AJ, Verrall GM, Spriggins AJ (2005) Blood loss after total knee replacement: effects of computer assisted surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:1480–1482

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hinarejos P, Corrales M, Matamalas A, Bisbe E, Cáceres E (2009) Computer-assisted surgery can reduce blood loss after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17(4):356–360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kini SG, Sathappan SS (2013) Role of navigated total knee arthroplasty for acute tibial fractures in the elderly. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 133(8):1149–1154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University Hospital of North Durham, Durham, DH1 5TW, UK

    Kiran Singisetti

  2. School of Sports and Exercise Sciences, University of Kent, Kent, UK

    Karthikeyan Muthumayandi

  3. Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 4LP, UK

    Zaid Abual-Rub

  4. Freeman Hospital, Freeman Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

    David Weir

  5. Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Queen Victoria Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 1LP, UK

    Zaid Abual-Rub

Authors
  1. Kiran Singisetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karthikeyan Muthumayandi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zaid Abual-Rub
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David Weir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zaid Abual-Rub.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Singisetti, K., Muthumayandi, K., Abual-Rub, Z. et al. Navigation-assisted versus conventional total knee replacement: no difference in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at 1 and 2 years. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 135, 1595–1601 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2314-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2314-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation