Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 1/2016

01-01-2016 | Knee

Computer-assisted navigation is beneficial both in primary and revision surgery with modular rotating-hinge knee arthroplasty

Authors: Björn G. Ochs, Anna J. Schreiner, Peter M. de Zwart, Ulrich Stöckle, Christoph Emanuel Gonser

Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The objective of the present study was to explore the effect of navigation on the reconstruction of the mechanical leg axis, implant positioning and the restoration of the joint line in hinged knee arthroplasty in vivo. We present the first 1- to 3-year clinical and radiological results following computer-navigated implantation of the EnduRo modular rotating-hinge knee arthroplasty system (Aesculap AG, Tuttlingen, Germany) as a primary or revision implant.

Methods

Thirty-one patients were analysed retrospectively. Indication was revision surgery in 18 patients and complex primary surgery in 13. The clinical and radiological results of 31 patients with a minimum follow-up of 12 months (mean 22.2 ± 6.2 months) were recorded. Age at follow-up was 55.2 ± 9.9 years.

Results

The absolute varus-valgus deviation from the neutral mechanical leg axis was determined at 5.1° ± 5.1° preoperatively and 2.1° ± 1.4° postoperatively. No intraoperative complications or problems with the navigation system were observed. At latest follow-up, no component loosening was detected. Based on the Knee Society Score, a knee score of 64.9 ± 17.7 points and a function score of 67.2 ± 27.3 points were achieved.

Conclusions

Encouraging short-term clinical and radiological results with the computer-navigated implantation of the modular rotating-hinge EnduRo knee arthroplasty system were found in both primary and revision surgery. The navigation facilitated the reconstruction of the leg axis, implant positioning and the restoration of the joint line.

Level of evidence

IV.
Literature
1.
Amanatullah DF, Di Cesare PE, Meere PA, Pereira GC (2013) Identification of the landmark registration safe zones during total knee arthroplasty using an imageless navigation system. J Arthroplast 28(6):938–942CrossRef
2.
Appleton P, Moran M, Houshian S, Robinson CM (2006) Distal femoral fractures treated by hinged total knee replacement in elderly patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88(8):1065–1070PubMedCrossRef
3.
Baek SW, Choi CH (2011) Management of severe tibial bony defects with double metal blocks in knee arthroplasty—a technical note involving 9 cases. Acta Orthop 82(1):116–118PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
4.
Baker P, Critchley R, Gray A, Jameson S, Gregg P, Port A, Deehan D (2014) Mid-term survival following primary hinged total knee replacement is good irrespective of the indication for surgery. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22(3):599–608PubMedCrossRef
5.
Beckmann J, Luring C, Springorum R, Kock FX, Grifka J, Tingart M (2011) Fixation of revision TKA: a review of the literature. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19(6):872–879PubMedCrossRef
6.
7.
Bistolfi A, Massazza G, Rosso F, Crova M (2012) Rotating-hinge total knee for revision total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 35(3):e325–e330PubMed
8.
Bolognesi M, Hofmann A (2005) Computer navigation versus standard instrumentation for TKA: a single-surgeon experience. Clin Orthop Relat Res 440:162–169PubMedCrossRef
9.
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):264–276PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
10.
Cheng T, Zhao S, Peng X, Zhang X (2012) Does computer-assisted surgery improve postoperative leg alignment and implant positioning following total knee arthroplasty? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(7):1307–1322PubMedCrossRef
11.
Confalonieri N, Manzotti A, Chemello C, Cerveri P (2010) Computer-assisted revision of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 33(10 Suppl):52–57PubMedCrossRef
12.
Ensini A, Catani F, Biasca N, Belvedere C, Giannini S, Leardini A (2012) Joint line is well restored when navigation surgery is performed for total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(3):495–502PubMedCrossRef
13.
Ewald FC (1989) The knee society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:9–12PubMed
14.
Gofton WT, Tsigaras H, Butler RA, Patterson JJ, Barrack RL, Rorabeck CH (2002) Revision total knee arthroplasty: fixation with modular stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 404:158–168PubMedCrossRef
15.
Graham DJ, Harvie P, Sloan K, Beaver RJ (2011) Morbidity of navigated vs conventional total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective review of 327 cases. J Arthroplast 26(8):1224–1227CrossRef
16.
Guenoun B, Latargez L, Freslon M, Defossez G, Salas N, Gayet LE (2009) Complications following rotating hinge Endo-Modell (Link) knee arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 95(7):529–536PubMedCrossRef
17.
18.
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):667–672.e1CrossRef
19.
Hernandez-Vaquero D, Sandoval-Garcia MA (2010) Hinged total knee arthroplasty in the presence of ligamentous deficiency. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(5):1248–1253PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
20.
Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the knee society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:13–14PubMed
21.
Jawhar A, Shah V, Sohoni S, Scharf HP (2013) Joint line changes after primary total knee arthroplasty: navigated versus non-navigated. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21(10):2355–2362PubMedCrossRef
22.
Jenny JY, Clemens U, Kohler S, Kiefer H, Konermann W, Miehlke RK (2005) Consistency of implantation of a total knee arthroplasty with a non-image-based navigation system: a case-control study of 235 cases compared with 235 conventionally implanted prostheses. J Arthroplast 20(7):832–839CrossRef
23.
Jenny JY, Diesinger Y (2010) Navigated revision TKR: a comparative study with conventional instruments. Orthopedics 33(10 Suppl):58–61PubMedCrossRef
24.
Kamat YD, Aurakzai KM, Adhikari AR, Matthews D, Kalairajah Y, Field RE (2009) Does computer navigation in total knee arthroplasty improve patient outcome at midterm follow-up? Int Orthop 33(6):1567–1570PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
25.
Kim SH, Lee HJ, Jung HJ, Lee JS, Kim KS (2013) Less femoral lift-off and better femoral alignment in TKA using computer-assisted surgery. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21(10):2255–2262PubMedCrossRef
26.
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):2017–2024PubMedCrossRef
27.
Konig C, Sharenkov A, Matziolis G, Taylor WR, Perka C, Duda GN, Heller MO (2010) Joint line elevation in revision TKA leads to increased patellofemoral contact forces. J Orthop Res 28(1):1–5PubMed
28.
Laskin RS (1998) Management of the patella during revision total knee replacement arthroplasty. Orthop Clin N Am 29(2):355–360CrossRef
29.
Lutzner J, Dexel J, Kirschner S (2013) No difference between computer-assisted and conventional total knee arthroplasty: five-year results of a prospective randomised study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21(10):2241–2247PubMedCrossRef
30.
Lutzner J, Hubel U, Kirschner S, Gunther KP, Krummenauer F (2011) Long-term results in total knee arthroplasty. A meta-analysis of revision rates and functional outcome. Chirurg 82(7):618–624PubMedCrossRef
31.
Massin P, Boyer P, Pernin J, Jeanrot C (2008) Navigated revision knee arthroplasty using a system designed for primary surgery. Comput Aided Surg 13(4):179–187PubMedCrossRef
32.
Meijer MF, Stevens M, Boerboom AL, Bulstra SK, Reininga IH (2014) The influence of computer-assisted surgery on rotational, coronal and sagittal alignment in revision total knee arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 15:94PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
33.
Molfetta L, Caldo D (2008) Computer navigation versus conventional implantation for varus knee total arthroplasty: a case–control study at 5 years follow-up. Knee 15(2):75–79PubMedCrossRef
34.
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):1496–1503PubMedCrossRef
35.
Petrou G, Petrou H, Tilkeridis C, Stavrakis T, Kapetsis T, Kremmidas N, Gavras M (2004) Medium-term results with a primary cemented rotating-hinge total knee replacement. A 7- to 15-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86(6):813–817PubMedCrossRef
36.
Porteous AJ, Hassaballa MA, Newman JH (2008) Does the joint line matter in revision total knee replacement? J Bone Joint Surg Br 90(7):879–884PubMedCrossRef
37.
Rath B, Springorum HR, Beckmann J, Schaumburger J, Tingart M, Grifka J, Luring C (2011) Importance of computer-assisted navigation in total knee arthroplasty—results of a nationwide survey in Germany. Z Orthop Unfall 149(2):173–177PubMed
38.
Romero J, Seifert B, Reinhardt O, Ziegler O, Kessler O (2010) A useful radiologic method for preoperative joint-line determination in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(5):1279–1283PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
39.
Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD (1998) Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS)—development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 28(2):88–96PubMedCrossRef
40.
Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH, Shastri S, Jacoby SM (2002) Insall award paper. Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today? Clin Orthop Relat Res 404:7–13PubMedCrossRef
41.
Smith TH, Gad BV, Klika AK, Styron JF, Joyce TA, Barsoum WK (2013) Comparison of mechanical and nonmechanical failure rates associated with rotating hinged total knee arthroplasty in nontumor patients. J Arthroplast 28(1):62–67.e1CrossRef
42.
Sparmann M, Wolke B, Czupalla H, Banzer D, Zink A (2003) Positioning of total knee arthroplasty with and without navigation support. A prospective, randomised study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 85(6):830–835PubMed
43.
Stockl B, Nogler M, Rosiek R, Fischer M, Krismer M, Kessler O (2004) Navigation improves accuracy of rotational alignment in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 426:180–186PubMedCrossRef
44.
Thielemann FW, Clemens U, Hadjicostas PT (2007) Computer-assisted surgery in revision total knee arthroplasty: early experience with 46 patients. Orthopedics 30(10 Suppl):S132–S135PubMed
45.
Whaley AL, Trousdale RT, Rand JA, Hanssen AD (2003) Cemented long-stem revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 18(5):592–599CrossRef
46.
Wood GC, Naudie DD, MacDonald SJ, McCalden RW, Bourne RB (2009) Results of press-fit stems in revision knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(3):810–817PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
47.
Yang JH, Yoon JR, Oh CH, Kim TS (2012) Primary total knee arthroplasty using rotating-hinge prosthesis in severely affected knees. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(3):517–523PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Computer-assisted navigation is beneficial both in primary and revision surgery with modular rotating-hinge knee arthroplasty
Authors
Björn G. Ochs
Anna J. Schreiner
Peter M. de Zwart
Ulrich Stöckle
Christoph Emanuel Gonser
Publication date
01-01-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Issue 1/2016
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3316-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 1/2016 Go to the issue

Knee

Better clinical results after closed- compared to open-wedge high tibial osteotomy in patients with medial knee osteoarthritis and varus leg alignment

Knee

Influence of the tourniquet on tibial cement mantle thickness in primary total knee arthroplasty

Knee

Femoral trochlear groove development after patellar subluxation and early reduction in growing rabbits

Knee

Patient-specific instrumentation improved mechanical alignment, while early clinical outcome was comparable to conventional instrumentation in TKA

Knee

Recovery of gait pattern after medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction for objective patellar instability

Knee

External rotation and active supination CT arthrography for the postoperative evaluation of type II superior labral anterior to posterior lesions