Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

No difference between computer-assisted and conventional total knee arthroplasty: five-year results of a prospective randomised study

  • Knee
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

The use of computer-assisted surgery (CAS) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) results in better limb and implant alignment compared to conventional TKA; however, it is unclear whether this translates to better mid- to long-term clinical outcome. This prospective randomised study comparing CAS and conventional TKA reports the functional and patient perceived outcomes at a follow-up of 5 years. The hypothesis was that there would be a difference in functional outcome or quality of life after mid-term follow-up.

Methods

Sixty-seven patients were available for physical and radiological examination at 5 years. The Knee Society Score (KSS) was used to describe functional outcome and the Euroquol questionnaire for quality of life.

Results

The mean total KSS for the CAS group improved from 91.1 (SD 22.3) points preoperatively to 157.4 (SD 21.9) and 150.2 (SD 30.4) points at 2 and 5 years, respectively. In the conventional group, the mean total KSS was 99.6 (SD 18.6) points preoperatively and 151.1 (SD 26.0) and 149.0 (SD 28.0) points at 2 and 5 years, respectively. The mean quality of life score improved from 48.2 (SD 16.5) points preoperatively to 67.4 (SD 16.3) and 66.8 (SD 22.2) points at 2 and 5 years in the CAS group, and from 52.2 (SD 17.1) points preoperatively to 65.6 (SD 14.6) and 61.7 (SD 19.3) points at 2 and 5 years, respectively, in the conventional TKA group. These differences were not statistically significant. There were radiolucent lines up to 2 mm in 11 knees (four CAS, seven conventional), but there were no changes in implant position.

Conclusions

There were no significant differences in functional or patient perceived outcome after mid-term follow-up in this study.

Level of evidence

I.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Beldame J, Boisrenoult P, Beaufils P (2010) Pin track induced fractures around computer-assisted TKA. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 96:249–255

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bellemans J, Colyn W, Vandenneucker H, Victor J (2012) The Chitranjan Ranawat award: is neutral mechanical alignment normal for all patients? The concept of constitutional varus. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:45–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brinker MR, Lund PJ, Barrack RL (1997) Demographic biases of scoring instruments for the results of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79:858–865

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Burnett RS, Barrack RL (2013) Computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty is currently of no proven clinical benefit: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:264–276

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cerha O, Kirschner S, Günther KP, Lützner J (2009) Cost analysis for navigation in knee endoprosthetics. Orthopäde 38:1235–1240

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Cheng T, Zhang G, Zhang X (2011) Imageless navigation system does not improve component rotational alignment in total knee arthroplasty. J Surg Res 171:590–600

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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 20:1307–1322

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Choi WC, Lee S, An JH et al (2011) Plain radiograph fails to reflect the alignment and advantages of navigation in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 26:756–764

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. EuroQol Group (11 A.D.) EQ 5D 3L user guide. http://www.euroqol.org/about-eq-5d/publications/user-guide.html

  10. Ewald FC (1989) The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:9–12

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fu Y, Wang M, Liu Y, Fu Q (2012) Alignment outcomes in navigated total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:1075–1082

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gothesen O, Espehaug B, Havelin L, Petursson G, Furnes O (2011) Short-term outcome of 1,465 computer-navigated primary total knee replacements 2005–2008. Acta Orthop 82:293–300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Harvie P, Sloan K, Beaver RJ (2012) Computer navigation vs conventional total knee arthroplasty: five-year functional results of a prospective randomized trial. J Arthroplasty 27:667–672

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hernandez-Vaquero D, Suarez-Vazquez A, Iglesias-Fernandez S (2011) Can computer assistance improve the clinical and functional scores in total knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:3436–3442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hetaimish BM, Khan MM, Simunovic N et al (2012) Meta-analysis of navigation vs conventional total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 27:1177–1182

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hoffart HE, Langenstein E, Vasak N (2012) A prospective study comparing the functional outcome of computer-assisted and conventional total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94:194–199

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hoppe S, Mainzer JD, Frauchiger L et al (2012) More accurate component alignment in navigated total knee arthroplasty has no clinical benefit at 5-year follow-up. Acta Orthop 83:629–633

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:13–14

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ishida K, Matsumoto T, Tsumura N et al (2011) Mid-term outcomes of computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:1107–1112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jenny JY, Miehlke RK, Giurea A (2008) Learning curve in navigated total knee replacement. A multi-centre study comparing experienced and beginner centres. Knee 15:80–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kamat YD, Aurakzai KM, Adhikari AR et al (2009) Does computer navigation in total knee arthroplasty improve patient outcome at midterm follow-up? Int Orthop 33:1567–1570

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kim K, Kim YH, Park WM, Rhyu KH (2010) Stress concentration near pin holes associated with fracture risk after computer navigated total knee arthroplasty. Comput Aided Surg 15:98–103

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Kim YH, Park JW, Kim JS (2012) Computer-navigated versus conventional total knee arthroplasty a prospective randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94:2017–2024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kind P, Dolan P, Gudex C, Williams A (1998) Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BMJ 316:736–741

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Laskin RS, Beksac B (2006) Computer-assisted navigation in TKA: where we are and where we are going. Clin Orthop Relat Res 452:127–131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lee DH, Park JH, Song DI et al (2010) Accuracy of soft tissue balancing in TKA: comparison between navigation-assisted gap balancing and conventional measured resection. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:381–387

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Lee HJ, Lee JS, Jung HJ et al (2011) Comparison of joint line position changes after primary bilateral total knee arthroplasty performed using the navigation-assisted measured gap resection or gap balancing techniques. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:2027–2032

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Love GJ, Kinninmonth AW (2012) Training benefits of computer navigated total knee arthroplasty. Knee

  29. Lützner J, Günther KP, Kirschner S (2010) Functional outcome after computer-assisted versus conventional total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:1339–1344

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lützner J, Krummenauer F, Wolf C, Günther KP, Kirschner S (2008) Computer-assisted and conventional total knee replacement: a comparative, prospective, randomised study with radiological and CT evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90:1039–1044

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Manzotti A, Cerveri P, De ME, Pullen C, Confalonieri N (2010) Relationship between cutting errors and learning curve in computer-assisted total knee replacement. Int Orthop 34:655–662

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. McConnell J, Dillon J, Kinninmonth A, Sarungi M, Picard F (2012) Blood loss following total knee replacement is reduced when using computer-assisted versus standard methods. Acta Orthop Belg 78:75–79

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Merle-Vincent F, Couris CM, Schott AM et al (2011) Factors predicting patient satisfaction 2 years after total knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis. Joint Bone Spine 78:383–386

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 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 15:75–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Nicoll D, Rowley DI (2010) Internal rotational error of the tibial component is a major cause of pain after total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92B: 1238–1244

    Google Scholar 

  36. Nilsdotter AK, Toksvig-Larsen S, Roos EM (2009) A 5 year prospective study of patient-relevant outcomes after total knee replacement. Osteoarthr Cartil 17:601–606

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Pang HN, Yeo SJ, Chong HC et al (2011) Computer-assisted gap balancing technique improves outcome in total knee arthroplasty, compared with conventional measured resection technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:1496–1503

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Parratte S, Pagnano MW, Trousdale RT, Berry DJ (2010) Effect of postoperative mechanical axis alignment on the fifteen-year survival of modern, cemented total knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92:2143–2149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ritter MA, Davis KE, Davis P et al (2013) Preoperative malalignment increases risk of failure after total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95:126–131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Ritter MA, Davis KE, Meding JB et al (2011) The effect of alignment and BMI on failure of total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:1588–1596

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Schnurr C, Gudden I, Eysel P, Konig DP (2012) Influence of computer navigation on TKA revision rates. Int Orthop 36:2255–2260

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Walde TA, Bussert J, Sehmisch S et al (2010) Optimized functional femoral rotation in navigated total knee arthroplasty considering ligament tension. Knee 17:381–386

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Widmer BJ, Scholes CJ, Lustig S et al (2013) Intraoperative computer navigation parameters are poor predictors of function 1 year after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 28:56–61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Willcox NM, Clarke JV, Smith BR, Deakin AH, Deep K (2012) A comparison of radiological and computer navigation measurements of lower limb coronal alignment before and after total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94:1234–1240

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Yaffe MA, Koo SS, Stulberg SD (2008) Radiographic and navigation measurements of TKA limb alignment do not correlate. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:2736–2744

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Brit Brethfeld and Heike Voigt for her valuable assistance during follow-up and data management and Alexandra Pearce for language editing.

Conflict of interest

This study was supported by a research grant from Stryker Orthopaedics.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Medical Faculty of the Technical University of Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany

    Jörg Lützner, Julian Dexel & Stephan Kirschner

Authors
  1. Jörg Lützner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julian Dexel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephan Kirschner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jörg Lützner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lützner, J., Dexel, J. & Kirschner, S. No difference between computer-assisted and conventional total knee arthroplasty: five-year results of a prospective randomised study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21, 2241–2247 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2608-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2608-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation