Comparison between patient-specific instruments and conventional instruments and computer navigation in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial
- 1k Downloads
The current study investigated the accuracy in achieving proper lower limb alignment and individual component positions after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with 3 different instrumentation techniques. It was hypothesized that patient-specific instruments (PSI) would achieve more accurate lower limb alignment and component positions compared to conventional instruments (CON).
Ninety knees in 81 patients were randomized in 1:1:1 ratio into CON, computer navigation (NAV) and PSI groups to receive TKA. The surgical routines were standardized. The lower limb mechanical axis and individual component positions were assessed on standard radiographs. Tourniquet time, operation time and patients’ functional scores were documented.
Conventional instruments and PSI were more likely to result in an excessively flexed femoral component (p = 0.001) compared to NAV. Number of outliers in postoperative lower limb alignment, and other components positions in the coronal and sagittal plane showed no statistically significant difference. The mean tourniquet time and operation time was significantly shorter in CON and PSI groups than NAV group (p < 0.001). Four early complications occurred in the PSI group (p = 0.015). At 3-month follow-up, there was no difference in terms of the knee range of motion and patients’ function among the 3 groups.
No significant radiological and clinical benefit could be demonstrated in using PSI over CON or NAV in TKA. Routine use of PSI is not recommended because of the extra cost and waiting time.
Level of evidence
KeywordsPatient-specific instrumentation Total knee arthroplasty Computer navigation Lower limb alignment Component position Functional outcomes
- 7.Boonen B, Schotanus MG, Kerens B, van der Weegen W, van Drumpt RA, Kort NP (2013) Intra-operative results and radiological outcome of conventional and patient-specific surgery in total knee arthroplasty: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21(10):2206–2212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Gothesen O, Espehaug B, Havelin LI, Petursson G, Hallan G, Strom E, Dyrhovden G, Furnes O (2014) Functional outcome and alignment in computer-assisted and conventionally operated total knee replacements: a multicentre parallel-group randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint J 96-B(5):609–618CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.Jenny JY, Clemens U, Kohler S, Kiefer H, Konermann W, Miehlke RK (2005) Consistency of implantation of a total knee arthroplasty with a non-image-based navigation system: a case–control study of 235 cases compared with 235 conventionally implanted prostheses. J Arthroplasty 20(7):832–839CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 36.Yaffe M, Luo M, Goyal N, Chan P, Patel A, Cayo M, Stulberg SD (2013) Clinical, functional, and radiographic outcomes following total knee arthroplasty with patient-specific instrumentation, computer-assisted surgery, and manual instrumentation: a short-term follow-up study. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. doi: 10.1007/s11548-013-0968-6 PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 38.Yau WP, Chiu KY, Tang WM, Ng TP (2007) Coronal bowing of the femur and tibia in Chinese: its incidence and effects on total knee arthroplasty planning. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 15(1):32–36Google Scholar