Published in:
01-11-2015 | Knee Arthroplasty
Navigation-assisted versus conventional total knee replacement: no difference in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at 1 and 2 years
Published in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery | Issue 11/2015
Login to get accessAbstract
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.