Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Long-term subjective outcomes of computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to clarify the results of computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty (TKA) after ten years using patient-derived scores.

Methods

Thirty posterior-stabilised total knee prostheses implanted using a computed tomography-free navigation system were compared with 30 matched total knee prostheses of the same type implanted using a conventional, manual technique. At an average of ten years after surgery, we investigated patient-reported outcomes using the Knee Society’s new scoring system. The results of 27 patients (14 patients in the navigation group and 13 patients in the manual group) were assessed in this study.

Results

There was no significant difference between the navigation and manual groups for any section of the questionnaire, which consisted of symptoms, patient satisfaction, patient expectation, walking/standing, standard activities, advanced activities, and discretionary activities.

Conclusion

After long-term follow-up, we found no subjective advantages of using a navigation system for patients who undergo TKA though the absolute number of patients was very small. Additional extensive studies are required to validate our result.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Becker R, Doring C, Denecke A, Brosz M (2011) Expectation, satisfaction and clinical outcome of patients after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Athrosc 19(9):1433–1441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM, Mahomed NN, Charron KD (2010) Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not? Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(1):57–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brin YS, Nikolaou VS, Joseph L, Zukor DJ, Antoniou J (2011) Imageless computer assisted versus conventional total knee replacement. A Bayesian meta-analysis of 23 comparative studies. Int Orthop 35(3):331–339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bullens PH, van Loon CJ, de Waal Malefijt MC, Laan RF, Veth RP (2001) Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: a comparison between subjective and objective outcome assessments. J Arthroplasty 16(6):740–747

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Dutton AQ, Yeo SJ (2009) Computer-assisted minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty compared with standard total knee arthroplasty. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(Suppl 2 Pt 1):116–130

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fehring TK, Odum S, Griffin WL, Mason JB, Nadaud M (2001) Early failures in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 392:315–318

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ishida K, Matsumoto T, Tsumura N, Kubo S, Kitagawa A, Chin T, Iguchi T, Kurosaka M, Kuroda R (2011) Mid-term outcomes of computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19(7):1107–1112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jeffery RS, Morris RW, Denham RA (1991) Coronal alignment after total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 73(5):709–714

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 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):832–839

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kamat YD, Aurakzai KM, Adhikari AR, Matthews D, Kalairajah Y, Field RE (2009) Does computer navigation in total knee arthroplasty improve patient outcome at midterm follow-up? Int Orthop 33(6):1567–1570

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Khanna G, Singh JA, Pomeroy DL, Gioe TJ (2011) Comparison of patient-reported and clinician-assessed outcomes following total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(20):e111–e117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kwon SK, Kang YG, Kim SJ, Chang CB, Seong SC, Kim TK (2010) Correlations between commonly used clinical outcome scales and patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 25(7):1125–1130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Matsuda S, Kawahara S, Okazaki K, Tashiro Y, Iwamoto Y (2013) Postoperative alignment and ROM affect patient satisfaction after TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(1):127–133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Matsumoto T, Tsumura N, Kurosaka M, Muratsu H, Kuroda R, Ishimoto K, Tsujimoto K, Shiba R, Yoshiya S (2004) Prosthetic alignment and sizing in computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 28(5):282–285

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Matsumoto T, Tsumura N, Kurosaka M, Muratsu H, Yoshiya S, Kuroda R (2006) Clinical values in computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 29(12):1115–1120

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mizner RL, Petterson SC, Clements KE, Zeni JA Jr, Irrgang JJ, Snyder-Mackler L (2011) Measuring functional improvement after total knee arthroplasty requires both performance-based and patient-report assessments: a longitudinal analysis of outcomes. J Arthroplasty 26(5):728–737

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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(2):75–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Noble PC, Scuderi GR, Brekke AC, Sikorskii A, Benjamin JB, Lonner JH, Chadha P, Daylamani DA, Scott WN, Bourne RB (2012) Development of a new Knee Society scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(1):20–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Scuderi GR, Bourne RB, Noble PC, Benjamin JB, Lonner JH, Scott WN (2012) The new Knee Society knee scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(1):3–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Spencer JM, Chauhan SK, Sloan K, Taylor A, Beaver RJ (2007) Computer navigation versus conventional total knee replacement: no difference in functional results at two years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(4):477–480

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Stulberg SD, Loan P, Sarin V (2002) Computer-assisted navigation in total knee replacement: results of an initial experience in thirty-five patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-A(Suppl 2):90–98

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tingart M, Luring C, Bathis H, Beckmann J, Grifka J, Perlick L (2008) Computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty versus the conventional technique: how precise is navigation in clinical routine? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16(1):44–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. van Strien T, van der Linden-van der Zwaag E, Kaptein B, van Erkel A, Valstar E, Nelissen R (2009) Computer assisted versus conventional cemented total knee prostheses alignment accuracy and micromotion of the tibial component. Int Orthop 33(5):1255–1261

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tomoyuki Matsumoto.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nakano, N., Matsumoto, T., Ishida, K. et al. Long-term subjective outcomes of computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 37, 1911–1915 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-1978-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-1978-2

Keywords

Navigation