Skip to main content
Log in

Minimal invasive and computer assisted total knee replacement compared with the conventional technique: a prospective, randomised trial

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

Abstract

Minimal invasive surgery (MIS) in total knee replacement (TKR) has been favoured by several authors and the industry and is asked for by the patients. Computer assisted surgery (CAS) is proposed to support the surgeon in terms of postoperative leg alignment and implant orientation. To prove the hypothesis that MIS in TKR fastens early rehabilitation compared to the standard approach and that CAS–MIS in TKR improves accuracy in implant position compared to the freehand MIS and freehand standard technique, we performed a prospective, randomised short-term trial which was approved by the local ethic committee. In total, 90 patients underwent TKR. The conventional group (n = 30) underwent conventional TKR, the MIS group (n = 30) underwent MIS–TKR without navigation, the CAS–MIS group (n = 30) underwent TKR using navigation and the MIS approach. Groups were comparable regarding patients’ specific parameters. The length of incision in extension was significantly lower in the MIS (13.2 cm) and CAS–MIS technique (12.9 cm) compared to the conventional technique (17.3 cm) (P < 0.01). Knee Society and WOMAC Score were similar in all three groups after 1, 6 and 12 weeks, no significant differences were seen between groups at any point of time. Postoperative deviation of the mechanical leg axis was significantly better in the CAS–MIS group compared to the conventional group and the MIS one (P < 0.05). The clinical relevance of our results is that the benefit of the minimal invasive approach in TKR is still not proven and navigation improves postoperative accuracy of leg alignment and component orientation. Our study shows that for the group of patients included there is no statistically significant difference in early rehabilitation between MIS and the conventional approach based on the Knee Society and WOMAC Score. Using the CAS technique restoration of leg axis was more accurate.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Petersen TL, Engh GA (1988) Radiographic assessment of knee alignment after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 3:67–72

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Jeffery RS, Morris RW, Denham RA (1991) Coronal alignment after total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 73:709–714

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson KC, Buehler KC, Markel DC (2005) Computer assisted navigation in total knee arthroplasty: comparison with conventional methods. J Arthroplasty 20:132–138

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bäthis H, Perlick L, Tingart M, Luring C, Zurakowski D, Grifka J (2004) Alignment in total knee arthroplasty. A comparison of computer-assisted surgery with the conventional technique. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86:682–687

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bolognesi M, Hofmann A (2005) Computer navigation versus standard instrumentation for TKA: a single-surgeon experience. Clin Orthop Relat Res 440:162–169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chauhan SK, Scott RG, Breidahl W, Beaver RJ (2004) Computer-assisted knee arthroplasty versus a conventional jig-based technique. A randomised, prospective trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86:372–377

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Chin PL, Yang KY, Yeo SJ, Lo NN (2005) Randomized control trial comparing radiographic total knee arthroplasty implant placement using computer navigation versus conventional technique. J Arthroplasty 20:618–626

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Daubresse F, Vajeu C, Loquet J (2005) Total knee arthroplasty with conventional or navigated technique: comparison of the learning curves in a community hospital. Acta Orthop Belg 71:710–713

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Decking R, Markmann Y, Fuchs J, Puhl W, Scharf HP (2005) Leg axis after computer-navigated total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized trial comparing computer-navigated and manual implantation. J Arthroplasty 20:282–288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hart R, Janecek M, Chaker A, Bucek P (2003) Total knee arthroplasty implanted with and without kinematic navigation. Int Orthop 27:366–369

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Bauwens K, Matthes G, Wich M, Gebhard F, Hanson B, Ekkernkamp A, Stengel D (2007) Navigated total knee replacement. A meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(2):261–269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sparmann M, Wolke B, Czupalla H, Banzer D, Zink A (2003) Positioning of total knee arthroplasty with and without navigation support. A prospective, randomised study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 85:830–835

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Scuderi GR, Tenholder M, Capeci C (2004) Surgical approaches in mini-incision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Rel Res 428:61–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Tenholder M, Clarke HD, Scuderi GR (2004) Minimal-incision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Rel Res 440:67–76

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hart R, Janecek M, Cizmar I, Stipcak V, Kucera B, Filan P (2006) Minimally invasive and navigated implantation for total knee arthroplasty: X-ray analysis and early clinical results. Orthopade 35(5):552–557

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Seon JK, Song EK, Yoon TR, Park SJ, Bae BH, Cho SG (2007) Comparison of functional results with navigation-assisted minimally invasive and conventional techniques in bilateral total knee arthroplasty. Comput Aided Surg 12(3):189–193

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Dalury DF, Dennis DA (2005) Mini-incision total knee arthroplasty can increase risk of component malalignment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 440:77–81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tria AJ Jr, Coon TM (2003) Minimal incision total knee arthroplasty: early experience. Clin Orthop Relat Res (416):185–190

  19. Bonutti PM, Mont MA, McMahon M, Ragland RS, Kester M (2004) Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 6A:26–32

    Google Scholar 

  20. Haas SB, Cook S, Beksac B (2004) Minimally invasive total knee replacement through a mini midvastus approach: a comparative study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 428:68–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Laskin RS, Beksac B, Phongjunakorn A, Pittors K, Davis J, Shim JC, Pavlov H, Petersen M (2004) Minimally invasive total knee replacement through a mini-midvastus incision: an outcome study. Clin Orthop Rel Res 428:74–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kolisek FR, Bonutti PM, Hozack WJ, Purtill J, Sharkey PF, Zelicof SB, Ragland PS, Kester M, Mont MA, Rothman RH (2007) Clinical experience using a minimally invasive surgical approach for total knee arthroplasty: early results of a prospective randomized study compared to a standard approach. J Arthroplasty 22(1):8–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Dalury DF, Jiranek WA (1999) A comparison of the midvastus and paramedian approaches for total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 14:33–37

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Engh GA, Holt BT, Parks NL (1997) A midvastus muscle-splitting approach for total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 12(3):322–331

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Haaker RG, Stockheim M, Kamp M, Proff G, Breitenfelder J, Ottersbach A (2005) Computer-assisted navigation increases precision of component placement in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 433:152–159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Patel DV, Ferris BD, Aichroth PM (1991) Radiological study of alignment after total knee replacement. Short radiographs or long radiographs? Int Orthop 15(3):209–210

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Bathis H, Shafizadeh S, Paffrath T, Simanski C, Grifka J, Luring C (2006) Are computer assisted total knee replacements more accurately placed? A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Orthopade 35(10):1056–1065

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Lüring.

Additional information

Level of evidence: Therapeutic Level I. Prospective randomised.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lüring, C., Beckmann, J., Haiböck, P. et al. Minimal invasive and computer assisted total knee replacement compared with the conventional technique: a prospective, randomised trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthr 16, 928–934 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-008-0582-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-008-0582-2

Keywords

Navigation