Advertisement

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 472, Issue 10, pp 3124–3133 | Cite as

Does Imageless Computer-assisted TKA Lead to Improved Rotational Alignment or Fewer Outliers? A Systematic Review

  • Marrigje F. Meijer
  • Inge H. F. Reininga
  • Alexander L. Boerboom
  • Sjoerd K. Bulstra
  • Martin Stevens
Survey

Abstract

Background

Computer-assisted surgery (CAS) has been developed to enhance prosthetic alignment during primary TKAs. Imageless CAS improves coronal and sagittal alignment compared with conventional TKA. However, the effect of imageless CAS on rotational alignment remains unclear.

Questions/purposes

We conducted a systematic and qualitative review of the current literature regarding the effectiveness of imageless CAS during TKA on (1) rotational alignment of the femoral and tibial components and tibiofemoral mismatch in terms of deviation from neutral rotation, and (2) the number of femoral and tibial rotational outliers.

Methods

Data sources included PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. Study selection, data extraction, and methodologic quality assessment were conducted independently by two reviewers. Standardized mean difference with 95% CI was calculated for continuous variables (rotational alignment of the femoral or tibial component and tibiofemoral mismatch). To compare the number of outliers for femoral and tibial component rotation, the odds ratio and 95% CI were calculated. The literature search produced 657 potentially relevant studies, 17 of which met the inclusion criteria. One study was considered as having high methodologic quality, 15 studies had medium, and one study had low quality.

Results

Conflicting evidence was found for all outcome measures except for tibiofemoral mismatch. Moderate evidence was found that imageless CAS had no influence on postoperative tibiofemoral mismatch. The measurement protocol for measuring tibial rotation varied among the studies and in only one of the studies was the sample size calculation based on one of the outcome measures used in our systematic review.

Conclusions

More studies of high methodologic quality and with a sample size calculation based on the outcome measures will be helpful to assess whether an imageless CAS TKA improves femoral and tibial rotational alignment and tibiofemoral mismatch or decreases the number of femoral and tibial rotational outliers. To statistically analyze the results of different studies, the same measurement protocol should be used among the studies.

Keywords

Methodologic Quality Femoral Component Aseptic Loosening Tibial Component Standardize Mean Difference 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Truus van Ittersum (literature retrieval specialist, Department of Health Sciences, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands) for her contribution to the literature search strategy.

Supplementary material

11999_2014_3688_MOESM1_ESM.doc (57 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 57 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Hip and knee arthroplasty: annual report 2010. Available at: https://aoanjrr.dmac.adelaide.edu.au/documents/10180/42844/Annual%20Report%202010?version=1&t=1349406187793. Accessed March 9, 2013.
  2. 2.
    Bargren JH, Blaha JD, Freeman MA. Alignment in total knee arthroplasty: correlated biomechanical and clinical observations. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983;173:178–183.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berger RA, Crossett LS, Jacobs JJ, Rubash HE. Malrotation causing patellofemoral complications after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;356:144–153.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berger RA, Rubash HE, Seel MJ, Thompson WH, Crossett LS. Determining the rotational alignment of the femoral component in total knee arthroplasty using the epicondylar axis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;286:40–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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;93:1377–1384.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brin YS, Nikolaou VS, Joseph L, Zukor DJ, Antoniou J. Imageless computer assisted versus conventional total knee replacement: a Bayesian meta-analysis of 23 comparative studies. Int Orthop. 2011;35:331–339.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burnett RS, Barrack RL. Computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty is currently of no proven clinical benefit: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:264–276.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carter RE 3rd, Rush PF, Smid JA, Smith WL. Experience with computer-assisted navigation for total knee arthroplasty in a community setting. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:707–713.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chauhan SK, Clark GW, Lloyd S, Scott RG, Breidahl W, Sikorski JM. Computer-assisted total knee replacement: a controlled cadaver study using a multi-parameter quantitative CT assessment of alignment (the Perth CT Protocol). J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86:818–823.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chauhan SK, Scott RG, Breidahl W, Beaver RJ. Computer-assisted knee arthroplasty versus a conventional jig-based technique: a randomised, prospective trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86:372–377.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cheng T, Zhang G, Zhang X. Imageless navigation system does not improve component rotational alignment in total knee arthroplasty. J Surg Res. 2011;171:590–600.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cheng T, Zhao S, Peng X, Zhang X. 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. 2012;20:1307–1322.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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;24:560–569.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc; 1988.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Czurda T, Fennema P, Baumgartner M, Ritschl P. The association between component malalignment and post-operative pain following navigation-assisted total knee arthroplasty: results of a cohort/nested case-control study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010;18:863–869.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Figgie HE 3rd, Goldberg VM, Heiple KG, Moller HS 3rd, Gordon NH. The influence of tibial-patellofemoral location on function of the knee in patients with the posterior stabilized condylar knee prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986;68:1035–1040.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Han HS, Seong SC, Lee S, Lee MC. Rotational alignment of femoral components in total knee arthroplasty: nonimage-based navigation system versus conventional technique. Orthopedics. 2006;29(10 suppl):S148–151.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Harvie P, Sloan K, Beaver RJ. Three-dimensional component alignment and functional outcome in computer-navigated total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized study comparing two navigation systems. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:1285–1290.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hernandez-Vaquero D, Suarez-Vazquez A, Iglesias-Fernandez S. Can computer assistance improve the clinical and functional scores in total knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:3436–3442.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hetaimish BM, Khan MM, Simunovic N, Al-Harbi HH, Bhandari M, Zalzal PK. Meta-analysis of navigation vs conventional total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27:1177–1182.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hirschmann MT, Konala P, Amsler F, Iranpour F, Friederich NF, Cobb JP. The position and orientation of total knee replacement components: a comparison of conventional radiographs, transverse 2D-CT slices and 3D-CT reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93:629–633.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hiscox CM, Bohm ER, Turgeon TR, Hedden DR, Burnell CD. Randomized trial of computer-assisted knee arthroplasty: impact on clinical and radiographic outcomes. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:1259–1264.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Huang TW, Hsu WH, Peng KT, Wen-Wei Hsu R, 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;93:1197–1202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Incavo SJ, Wild JJ, Coughlin KM, Beynnon BD. Early revision for component malrotation in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;458:131–136.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jeffery RS, Morris RW, Denham RA. Coronal alignment after total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991;73:709–714.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kamat YD, Aurakzai KM, Adhikari AR, Matthews D, Kalairajah Y, Field RE. Does computer navigation in total knee arthroplasty improve patient outcome at midterm follow-up? Int Orthop. 2009;33:1567–1570.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kim YH, Kim JS, Choi Y, Kwon OR. Computer-assisted surgical navigation does not improve the alignment and orientation of the components in total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:14–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    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;89:471–476.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Longstaff L, Sloan K, Stamp N, Scaddan M, Beaver R. Good alignment after total knee arthroplasty leads to faster rehabilitation and better function. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:570–578.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lotke PA, Ecker ML. Influence of positioning of prosthesis in total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1977;59:77–79.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lutzner J, Krummenauer F, Wolf C, Gunther KP, Kirschner S. Computer-assisted and conventional total knee replacement: a comparative, prospective, randomised study with radiological and CT evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:1039–1044.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Matos LFC, Alves ALQ, Sobreiro AL, Giordano MN, Albuquerque RSP, Carvalho ACP Carvalho Matos LF, Quintas Alves AL, Sobreiro AL, Giordano MN, Pires de Albuquerque RS, Pires Carvalho AC. [Navigation in total knee arthroplasty: is there any advantage?][in Portuguese]. Acta Ortop Bras. 2011;19:184-188. Available at: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/aob/v19n4/en_02.pdf. Accessed February 22, 2014.
  33. 33.
    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;89:236–243.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8:336–341.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mombert M, Van Den Daelen L, Gunst P, Missinne L. Navigated total knee arthroplasty: a radiological analysis of 42 randomised cases. Acta Orthop Belg. 2007;73:49–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nicoll D RD. Internal rotational error of the tibial component is a major cause of pain after total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92:1238–1244.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Poolman RW, Struijs PA, Krips R, Sierevelt IN, Lutz KH, Bhandari M. Does a “Level I Evidence” rating imply high quality of reporting in orthopaedic randomised controlled trials? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:44.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Reininga IH, Zijlstra W, Wagenmakers R, Boerboom AL, Huijbers BP, Groothoff JW, Bulstra SK, Stevens SM. Minimally invasive and computer-navigated total hip arthroplasty: a qualitative and systematic review of the literature. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010;11:92.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ritter MA, Davis KE, Meding JB, Pierson JL, Berend ME, Malinzak RA. The effect of alignment and BMI on failure of total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93:1588–1596.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ritter MA, Faris PM, Keating EM, Meding JB. Postoperative alignment of total knee replacement: its effect on survival. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;299:153–156.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Schmitt J, Hauk C, Kienapfel H, Pfeiffer M, Efe T, Fuchs-Winkelmann S, Heyse TJ. Navigation of total knee arthroplasty: rotation of components and clinical results in a prospectively randomized study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:16.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Shrier I, Boivin JF, Steele RJ, Platt RW, Furlan A, Kakuma R, Brophy J, Rossignol M. Should meta-analyses of interventions include observational studies in addition to randomized controlled trials? A critical examination of underlying principles. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;166:1203–1209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Song EK, Seon JK, Yim JH, Netravali NA, Bargar WL. Robotic-assisted TKA reduces postoperative alignment outliers and improves gap balance compared to conventional TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:118–126.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Stockl B, Nogler M, Rosiek R, Fischer M, Krismer M, Kessler O. Navigation improves accuracy of rotational alignment in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;426:180–186.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register. 2010 annual report. Available at: http://www.knee.nko.se/english/online/uploadedFiles/114_SKAR2010_Eng1.0.pdf. Accessed March 9, 2013.
  46. 46.
    van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L; Editorial Board of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28:1290–1299.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    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;93:1190–1196.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zhang XL, Zhang W, Shao JJ. Rotational alignment in total knee arthroplasty: nonimage-based navigation system versus conventional technique. Chin Med J. 2012;125:236–243.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marrigje F. Meijer
    • 1
  • Inge H. F. Reininga
    • 2
  • Alexander L. Boerboom
    • 1
  • Sjoerd K. Bulstra
    • 1
  • Martin Stevens
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OrthopaedicsUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Trauma SurgeryUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations