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

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 10/2020

01-10-2020 | KNEE

No differences in mid- to long-term outcomes of computer-assisted navigation versus conventional total knee arthroplasty

Authors: Dong-Yeong Lee, Young-Jin Park, Sun-Chul Hwang, Jin-Sung Park, Dong-Geun Kang

Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 10/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Accurate implant position in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can potentially lead to better long-term functional outcomes and implant survival. Recent studies on whether better clinical results could be obtained from computer-navigated or conventional TKA were inconclusive. In addition, recent reviews only included short-term follow-up studies without performing quantitative mid- to long-term follow-up analysis. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to perform a meta-analysis comparing mid- to long-term clinical outcomes (such as knee scoring and functional results) and radiological outcomes (such as normal alignment of the limb axis or component) between computer-navigated TKA and conventional TKA to determine which method of TKA could obtain better clinical and radiological results.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, and SCOPUS electronic databases were searched for relevant articles published through August 2018 that compared outcomes of computer-navigated TKA and conventional TKA. Data search, extraction, analysis, and quality assessment were performed according to the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. Clinical and radiological outcomes of both techniques were evaluated using various outcome measures.

Results

Seven randomized controlled trials were included. Based on Knee Society Scores, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, pain, and range of motion, there were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between the two techniques. Based on outliers from the normal axis, outliers of femoral components in the coronal plane, and outliers of tibial components in the coronal plane, radiologic outcomes showed no significant differences between the two techniques either.

Conclusions

The present study revealed that there were no significant differences in clinical or radiological outcomes between computer-navigated TKA and conventional TKA. It remains unclear which TKA technique yields better results in terms of mid- to long-term clinical and radiological outcomes.

Level of evidence

I.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Bae DK, Song SJ, Park CH, Ko YW, Lee H (2017) A comparison of the medium-term results of total knee arthroplasty using computer-assisted and conventional techniques to treat patients with extraarticular femoral deformities. J Arthroplast 32:71–78
2.
Bae DK, Song SJ, Yoon KH, Noh JH, Moon SC (2012) Comparative study of tibial posterior slope angle following cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty using one of three implants. Int Orthop 36:755–760PubMed
3.
Bargren JH, Blaha JD, Freeman MA (1983) Alignment in total knee arthroplasty. Correlated biomechanical and clinical observations. Clin Orthop Relat Res 173:178–183
4.
Bauwens K, Matthes G, Wich M, Gebhard F, Hanson B, Ekkernkamp A et al (2007) Navigated total knee replacement. A meta-analysis. J Bone Jt Surg Am 89:261–269
5.
Berend ME, Ritter MA, Meding JB, Faris PM, Keating EM, Redelman R et al (2004) Tibial component failure mechanisms in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 428:26–34
6.
Berger RA, Rubash HE, Seel MJ, Thompson WH, Crossett LS (1993) Determining the rotational alignment of the femoral component in total knee arthroplasty using the epicondylar axis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 286:40–47
7.
Blakeney WG, Khan RJ, Palmer JL (2014) Functional outcomes following total knee arthroplasty: a randomised trial comparing computer-assisted surgery with conventional techniques. Knee 21:364–368PubMed
8.
Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM, Mahomed NN, Charron KD (2010) Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not? Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:57–63PubMed
9.
Buechel FF Sr (2002) Long-term followup after mobile-bearing total knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 404:40–50
10.
Chatain F, Gaillard TH, Denjean S, Tayot O (2013) Outcomes of 447 SCORE(R) highly congruent mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasties after 5–10 years follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 99:681–686PubMed
11.
Choong PF, Dowsey MM, Stoney JD (2009) Does accurate anatomical alignment result in better function and quality of life? Comparing conventional and computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 24:560–569
12.
Cip J, Obwegeser F, Benesch T, Bach C, Ruckenstuhl P, Martin A (2018) Twelve-year follow-up of navigated computer-assisted versus conventional total knee arthroplasty a prospective randomized comparative trial. J Arthroplast 33:1404–1411
13.
Cip J, Widemschek M, Luegmair M, Sheinkop MB, Benesch T, Martin A (2014) Conventional versus computer-assisted technique for total knee arthroplasty: a minimum of 5-year follow-up of 200 patients in a prospective randomized comparative trial. J Arthroplast 29:1795–1802
14.
de Steiger RN, Liu YL, Graves SE (2015) Computer navigation for total knee arthroplasty reduces revision rate for patients less than sixty-five years of age. J Bone Jt Surg Am 97:635–642
15.
Delp SL, Stulberg SD, Davies B, Picard F, Leitner F (1998) Computer assisted knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 354:49–56
16.
Ethgen O, Bruyere O, Richy F, Dardennes C, Reginster JY (2004) Health-related quality of life in total hip and total knee arthroplasty A qualitative and systematic review of the literature. J Bone Jt Surg Am 86:963–974
17.
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 27:667–672
18.
Hernandez-Vaquero D, Suarez-Vazquez A, Sandoval-Garcia MA, Noriega-Fernandez A (2010) Computer assistance increases precision of component placement in total knee arthroplasty with articular deformity. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:1237–1241PubMed
19.
Hetaimish BM, Khan MM, Simunovic N, Al-Harbi HH, Bhandari M, Zalzal PK (2012) Meta-analysis of navigation vs conventional total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 27:1177–1182
20.
Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD et al (2011) The Cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343:d5928PubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Ishida K, Matsumoto T, Tsumura N, Kubo S, Kitagawa A, Chin T et al (2011) Mid-term outcomes of computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:1107–1112PubMed
22.
Jeffery RS, Morris RW, Denham RA (1991) Coronal alignment after total knee replacement. J Bone Jt Surg Br 73:709–714
23.
Jenny JY, Boeri C (2001) Computer-assisted implantation of total knee prostheses: a case-control comparative study with classical instrumentation. Comput Aided Surg 6:217–220PubMed
24.
Keating EM, Meding JB, Faris PM, Ritter MA (2002) Long-term followup of nonmodular total knee replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res 404:34–39
25.
Kim YH, Park JW, Kim JS (2018) 2017 Chitranjan S. Ranawat award: does computer navigation in knee arthroplasty improve functional outcomes in young patients? a randomized study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 476:6–15PubMed
26.
Kim YH, Park JW, Kim JS (2017) The clinical outcome of computer-navigated compared with conventional knee arthroplasty in the same patients. J Bone Jt Surg Am 99:989–996
27.
Kim YH, Park JW, Kim JS (2012) Computer-navigated versus conventional total knee arthroplasty: A prospective randomized trial. J Bone Jt Surg Am 94:2017–2024
28.
Krackow KA, Pepe CL, Galloway EJ (1990) A mathematical analysis of the effect of flexion and rotation on apparent varus/valgus alignment at the knee. Orthopedics 13:861–868PubMed
29.
Lin SY, Chen CH, Fu YC, Huang PJ, Lu CC, Su JY et al (2013) Comparison of the clinical and radiological outcomes of three minimally invasive techniques for total knee replacement at two years. Bone Jt J 95B:906–910
30.
Longstaff LM, Sloan K, Stamp N, Scaddan M, Beaver R (2009) Good alignment after total knee arthroplasty leads to faster rehabilitation and better function. J Arthroplast 24:570–578
31.
Lotke PA, Ecker ML (1977) Influence of positioning of prosthesis in total knee replacement. J Bone Jt Surg Am 59:77–79
32.
Lützner 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 21:2241–2247PubMed
33.
Ma HM, Lu YC, Ho FY, Huang CH (2005) Long-term results of total condylar knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 20:580–584
34.
Marques CJ, Daniel S, Sufi-Siavach A, Lampe F (2015) No differences in clinical outcomes between fixed- and mobile-bearing computer-assisted total knee arthroplasties and no correlations between navigation data and clinical scores. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:1660–1668PubMed
35.
Mason JB, Fehring TK, Estok R, Banel D, Fahrbach K (2007) Meta-analysis of alignment outcomes in computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty surgery. J Arthroplast 22:1097–1106
36.
Mielke RK, Clemens U, Jens JH, Kershally S (2001) Navigation in knee endoprosthesis implantation–preliminary experiences and prospective comparative study with conventional implantation technique. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 139:109–116PubMed
37.
Noble PC, Gordon MJ, Weiss JM, Reddix RN, Conditt MA, Mathis KB (2005) Does total knee replacement restore normal knee function? Clin Orthop Relat Res 431:157–165
38.
Ollivier M, Parratte S, Lino L, Flecher X, Pesenti S, Argenson JN (2018) No benefit of computer-assisted TKA: 10-year results of a prospective randomized study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 476:126–134PubMed
39.
Rebal BA, Babatunde OM, Lee JH, Geller JA, Patrick DA Jr, Macaulay W (2014) Imageless computer navigation in total knee arthroplasty provides superior short term functional outcomes: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplast 29:938–944
40.
Ritter MA, Faris PM, Keating EM, Meding JB (1994) Postoperative alignment of total knee replacement. Its effect on survival. Clin Orthop Relat Res 299:153–156
41.
Roberts TD, Clatworthy MG, Frampton CM, Young SW (2015) Does computer assisted navigation improve functional outcomes and implant survivability after total knee arthroplasty? J Arthroplast 30:59–63
42.
Shin YS, Kim HJ, Ko YR, Yoon JR (2016) Minimally invasive navigation-assisted versus conventional total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24:3425–3432PubMed
43.
Song EK, Agrawal PR, Kim SK, Seo HY, Seon JK (2016) A randomized controlled clinical and radiological trial about outcomes of navigation-assisted TKA compared to conventional TKA: long-term follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24:3381–3386PubMed
44.
Spencer JM, Chauhan SK, Sloan K, Taylor A, Beaver RJ (2007) Computer navigation versus conventional total knee replacement: no difference in functional results at two years. J Bone Jt Surg Br 89:477–480
45.
Weng YJ, Hsu RW, Hsu WH (2009) Comparison of computer-assisted navigation and conventional instrumentation for bilateral total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 24:668–673
46.
Xie C, Liu K, Xiao L, Tang R (2012) Clinical outcomes after computer-assisted versus conventional total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 35:e647–e653PubMed
Metadata
Title
No differences in mid- to long-term outcomes of computer-assisted navigation versus conventional total knee arthroplasty
Authors
Dong-Yeong Lee
Young-Jin Park
Sun-Chul Hwang
Jin-Sung Park
Dong-Geun Kang
Publication date
01-10-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Issue 10/2020
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05808-5

Other articles of this Issue 10/2020

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 10/2020 Go to the issue

KNEE

Enhanced microfracture using acellular scaffolds improves results after treatment of symptomatic focal grade III/IV knee cartilage lesions but current clinical evidence does not allow unequivocal recommendation

HIP

Correlation between the presence of herniation pit and femoroacetabular impingement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

KNEE

Distal tibial tubercle osteotomy is superior to the proximal one for progression of patellofemoral osteoarthritis in medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy

KNEE

Comorbidities rather than age affect medium-term outcome in octogenarian patients after total knee arthroplasty

KNEE

Varus alignment of the proximal tibia is associated with structural progression in early to moderate varus osteoarthritis of the knee

KNEE

The tibial cut influences the patellofemoral knee kinematics and pressure distribution in total knee arthroplasty with constitutional varus alignment