Post-operative Radiographic assessment in bilateral Total Knee Arthroplasty: Conventional VS. Computer-Assisted surgery Method
Keywords:
Computer-Assisted Surgery, Arthroplasty, Total Knee ReplacementAbstract
The purpose of this retrospective study is to compare the efficiency of computer-assisted surgery (CAS) and conventional method (CONV) in TKA usingmechanical axis (MA) and component alignment measured on the postoperative radiograph in the same patient by different technique for TKA on both sides of the knee. Retrospective study design.
Methods : Fifty-two TKA in twenty-six patients with primary osteoarthritis of both knees that underwent primary TKA by computer-assisted surgery one side and conventional method on the other side were inclusion criteria. Digital long-leg weight-bearing radiographs were taken. The mechanical axis (MA), femoral component in coronal plane (FFC), tibial component in coronal plane (FTC), femoral component in sagittal plane (SFC) and tibial component in sagittal plane (STC) were measured and compared.
Result: The MA indicated that computer-assisted surgery (CAS) is significantly improved accuracy compared with conventional method (178.12° ± 1.56° and 176.15°± 1.85° respectively, p = 0.00). For FFC alignment, the results showed that CAS group is significantly more accurate than CONV group (88.58° ± 1.30° and 87.38° ± 2.02° respectively, p = 0.07). CAS group showed less distribution and fewer outliers of data than CONV group. For FTC, SFC and STC alignment, the means of both groups were no difference (p >0.05). Otherwise, the numbers of outlier CONV group trend toward greater than CAS group (FTC 3.8% and 0%, SFC 26.90% and 15.4%, respectively). There was no report of change in the navigator group procedure to conventional method during surgery, and no perioperative or postoperative complications were noted.
Conclusion : Computer-assisted surgery (CAS) is a safe and useful intraoperative tool for total knee arthroplasty to improve accuracy of mechanical axis, good implant position and reduce number of postoperative implant outlier. More number of sample size and clinical outcome will be required additional investigation.
Downloads
References
Stindel E, Briard JL, Merloz P, Plaweski S, Dubrana F, Lefevre C, et al. Bone morphing: 3D morphological data for total knee arthroplasty. Comput Aided Surg. 2002;7(3):156-68.
Jeffery RS, Morris RW, Denham RA. Coronal alignment after total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991;73(5):709-14.
Ek ET, Dowsey MM, Tse LF, Riazi A, Love BR, Stoney JD, et al. Comparison of functional and radiological outcomes after computer-assisted versus conventional total knee arthroplasty: a matched-control retrospective study. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2008;16(2):192-6.
Rand JA, Coventry MB. Ten-year evaluation of geometric total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988(232):168-73.
Ranawat CS, Boachie-Adjei O. Survivorship analysis and results of total condylar knee arthroplasty. Eight- to 11-year follow-up period. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988(226):6-13.
Ritter MA, Faris PM, Keating EM, Meding JB. Postoperative alignment of total knee replacement. Its effect on survival. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994(299):153-6.
Bargren JH, Blaha JD, Freeman MA. Alignment in total knee arthroplasty. Correlated biomechanical and clinical observations. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983(173):178-83.
Wasielewski RC, Galante JO, Leighty RM, Natarajan RN, Rosenberg AG. Wear patterns on retrieved polyethylene tibial inserts and their relationship to technical considerations during total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994(299):31-43.
Jenny JY, Boeri C. [Computer-assisted implantation of a total knee arthroplasty: a case-controlled study in comparison with classical instrumentation]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2001;87(7):645-52.
Bathis H, Perlick L, Tingart M, Luring C, Perlick C, Grifka J. Radiological results of image-based and non-image-based computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2004;28(2):87-90.
Matziolis G, Krocker D, Weiss U, Tohtz S, Perka C. 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. 2007;89(2):236-43.
Pang HN, Yeo SJ, Chong HC, Chin PL, Ong J, Lo NN. Computer-assisted gap balancing technique improves outcome in total knee arthroplasty, compared with conventional measured resection technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19(9):1496-503.
Shinozaki T, Gotoh M, Mitsui Y, Hirai Y, Okawa T, Higuchi F, et al. Computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty: comparisons with the conventional technique. Kurume Med J. 2011;58(1):21-6.
Kim YH, Kim JS, Yoon SH. Alignment and orientation of the components in total knee replacement with and without navigation support: a prospective, randomised study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89(4):471-6.
Cheng T, Pan XY, Mao X, Zhang GY, Zhang XL. Little clinical advantage of computer-assisted navigation over conventional instrumentation in primary total knee arthroplasty at early follow-up. Knee. 2011.
Ajwani SH, Jones M, Jarratt JW, Shepard GJ, Ryan WG. Computer assisted versus conventional total knee replacement: A comparison of tourniquet time, blood loss and length of stay. Knee. 2011.
Hoffart HE, Langenstein E, Vasak N. A prospective study comparing the functional outcome of computer-assisted and conventional total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94(2):194-9.
Choong PF, Dowsey MM, Stoney JD. Does accurate anatomical alignment result in better function and quality of life? Comparing conventional and computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24(4):560-9.
Blakeney WG, Khan RJ, Wall SJ. Computer-assisted techniques versus conventional guides for component alignment in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(15):1377-84.
Mason JB, Fehring TK, Estok R, Banel D, Fahrbach K. Meta-analysis of alignment outcomes in computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty surgery. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(8):1097-106.
Zhang GQ, Chen JY, Chai W, Liu M, Wang Y. Comparison between computer-assisted-navigation and conventional total knee arthroplasties in patients undergoing simultaneous bilateral procedures: a randomized clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(13):1190-6.
Mullaji A, Kanna R, Marawar S, Kohli A, Sharma A. Comparison of limb and component alignment using computer-assisted navigation versus image intensifier-guided conventional total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, single-surgeon study of 467 knees. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(7):953-9.
Huang TW, Hsu WH, Peng KT, Hsu RW, Weng YJ, Shen WJ. Total knee arthroplasty with use of computer-assisted navigation compared with conventional guiding systems in the same patient: radiographic results in Asian patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(13):1197-202.
Perlick L, Bathis H, Perlick C, Luring C, Tingart M, Grifka J. Revision total knee arthroplasty: a comparison of postoperative leg alignment after computer-assisted implantation versus the conventional technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2005;13(3):167-73.
Longstaff LM, Sloan K, Stamp N, Scaddan M, Beaver R. Good Alignment After Total Knee Arthroplasty Leads to Faster Rehabilitation and Better Function. The Journal of Arthroplasty. 2009;24(4):570-8.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Singburi Hospital Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The published articles are copyrighted by Singburi Hospital.
The statements appearing in each article in this academic journal are the personal opinions of each author and are not related in any way to Singburi Hospital or other hospital personnel. Each author is solely responsible for all contents of their article. If there are any errors, each author alone will be responsible for their own article.
