Abstract
BackgroundThe literature comparing the long-term outcomes and survivorship of computer navigation-assisted and conventional total knee replacement (TKR) is sparse. Moreover, of the available comparative studies with follow-up duration of more than 10 years, the results seem to be conflicting. The purpose of this long-term study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes, and implant survivorship, of TKR performed with and without computer navigation.MethodsWe retrospectively compared the results of 49 computer-navigated TKRs and 139 conventional TKRs. The mean age of the patients was 67.9 (range 52–81) years for the navigation group and 67.1 (range 50–80) years for the conventional TKR group. The mean duration of follow-up for the conventional and navigation TKR groups was 12.9 and 13.2 years, respectively. Clinical and radiographic follow-up examinations of the patients were performed at 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months and 6 months post-operatively, and at 1-year intervals thereafter.ResultsThere were no significant differences in the post-operative Knee Society knee and function score between the two groups. The mean overall deviation from neutral alignment and the radiological outliers were significantly higher in the conventional TKR group. The overall survival rates at 17 years were 92.9% for the navigation group and 95.6% for the conventional TKR group (p = 0.62).ConclusionsNavigated TKR resulted in fewer radiological outliers; however, this did not translate to better long-term functional outcomes or implant survival.
Highlights
The literature comparing the long-term outcomes and survivorship of computer navigation-assisted and conventional total knee replacement (TKR) is sparse
In one of the longest follow-up studies to date, Kim et al.’s randomised controlled trial (RCT) found no difference in clinical and radiological outcomes, and survivorship, in navigation-assisted TKR compared with conventional TKR [9]
We hypothesised that the radiographic outcomes and consequent implant survivorship may be better in the navigation-assisted TKR group
Summary
The literature comparing the long-term outcomes and survivorship of computer navigation-assisted and conventional total knee replacement (TKR) is sparse. Of the available comparative studies with followup duration of more than 10 years, the results seem to be conflicting The purpose of this long-term study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes, and implant survivorship, of TKR performed with and without com‐ puter navigation. De Steiger et al examined the Australian National Joint Registry data and compared the cumulative revision rate of 44,473 navigation-assisted TKR versus 270,545 conventional TKR over 9 years of follow-up duration. Based on their analysis, they concluded that, for the subgroup of patients < 65 years old, computer-assisted navigation TKR resulted in a significant reduction in revision for aseptic loosening with a hazard ratio of 1.38 [11]. We hypothesised that the radiographic outcomes and consequent implant survivorship may be better in the navigation-assisted TKR group
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have