Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 43, Issue 6, pp 1337–1343 | Cite as

Current concepts and future perspectives in computer-assisted navigated total knee replacement

  • Tomoyuki MatsumotoEmail author
  • Naoki Nakano
  • John E. Lawrence
  • Vikas Khanduja
Review Article

Abstract

Background

Total knee replacements (TKR) aim to restore stability of the tibiofemoral and patella-femoral joints and provide relief of pain and improved quality of life for the patient. In recent years, computer-assisted navigation systems have been developed with the aim of reducing human error in joint alignment and improving patient outcomes.

Methods

We examined the current body of evidence surrounding the use of navigation systems and discussed their current and future role in TKR.

Results

The current body of evidence shows that the use of computer navigation systems for TKR significantly reduces outliers in the mechanical axis and coronal prosthetic position. Also, navigation systems offer an objective assessment of soft tissue balancing that had previously not been available. Although these benefits represent a technical superiority to conventional TKR techniques, there is limited evidence to show long-term clinical benefit with the use of navigation systems, with only a small number of studies showing improvement in outcome scores at short-term follow-up. Because of the increased costs and operative time associated with their use as well as the emergence of more affordable and patient-specific technologies, it is unlikely for navigation systems to become more widely used in the near future.

Conclusions

Whilst this technology helps surgeons to achieve improved component positioning, it is important to consider the clinical and functional implications, as well as the added costs and potential learning curve associated with adopting new technology.

Keywords

Total knee replacement (TKR) Navigation Computer-assisted surgery Review 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Insall JN, Binazzi R, Soudry M, Mestriner LA (1985) Total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 192:13–22Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Insall J, Tria AJ, Scott WN (1979) The total condylar knee prosthesis: the first 5 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res (145):68-77Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dorr LD, Boiardo RA (1986) Technical considerations in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 205:5–11Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Miyasaka T, Kurosaka D, Saito M, Omori T, Ikeda R, Marumo K (2017) Accuracy of computed tomography-based navigation-assisted total knee arthroplasty: outlier analysis. J Arthroplasty 32(1):47–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hiscox CM, Bohm ER, Turgeon TR, Hedden DR, Burnell CD (2011) Randomized trial of computer-assisted knee arthroplasty: impact on clinical and radiographic outcomes. J Arthroplasty 26(8):1259–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kim YH, Kim JS, Choi Y, Kwon OR (2009) Computer-assisted surgical navigation does not improve the alignment and orientation of the components in total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(1):14–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim YH, Kim JS, Yoon SH (2007) Alignment and orientation of the components in total knee replacement with and without navigation support: a prospective, randomised study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(4):471–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lutzner J, Krummenauer F, Wolf C, Gunther 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(8):1039–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stulberg SD, Yaffe MA, Koo SS (2006) Computer-assisted surgery versus manual total knee arthroplasty: a case-controlled study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88(Suppl 4):47–54Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bauwens K, Matthes G, Wich M et al (2007) Navigated total knee replacement: a meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(2):261–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mason JB, Fehring TK, Estok R, Banel D, Fahrbach K (2007) Meta-analysis of alignment outcomes in computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty surgery. J Arthroplast 22(8):1097–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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):331–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hetaimish BM, Khan MM, Simunovic N, Al-Harbi HH, Bhandari M, Zalzal PK (2012) Meta-analysis of navigation vs conventional total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 27(6):1177–1182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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(7):1307–1322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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(6):1075–1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Minoda Y, Kobayashi A, Iwaki H et al (2010) The risk of notching the anterior femoral cortex with the use of navigation systems in total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18(6):718–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chung BJ, Kang YG, Chang CB, Kim SJ, Kim TK (2009) Differences between sagittal femoral mechanical and distal reference axes should be considered in navigated TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(9):2403–2413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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 Joit Surg Br 86(3):372–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Czurda T, Fennema P, Baumgartner M, Ritschl P (2010) 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 18(7):863–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ishida K, Matsumoto T, Tsumura N et al (2011) Mid-term outcomes of computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19(7):1107–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Matziolis G, Krocker D, Weiss U, Tohtz S, Perka C (2007) 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 89(2):236–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Oberst M, Bertsch C, Wurstlin S, Holz U (2003) CT analysis of leg alignment after conventional vs. navigated knee prosthesis implantation. Initial results of a controlled, prospective and randomized study. Unfallchirurg 106(11):941–948Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Restrepo C, Hozack WJ, Orozco F, Parvizi J (2008) Accuracy of femoral rotational alignment in total knee arthroplasty using computer assisted navigation. Comput Aided Surg 13(3):167–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schmitt J, Hauk C, Kienapfel H et al (2011) Navigation of total knee arthroplasty: rotation of components and clinical results in a prospectively randomized study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 12:16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stockl B, Nogler M, Rosiek R, Fischer M, Krismer M, Kessler O (2004) Navigation improves accuracy of rotational alignment in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 426:180–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    van der Linden-van der Zwaag HM, Bos J, van der Heide HJ, Nelissen RG (2011) A computed tomography based study on rotational alignment accuracy of the femoral component in total knee arthroplasty using computer-assisted orthopaedic surgery. Int Orthop 35(6):845–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zorman D, Etuin P, Jennart H, Scipioni D, Devos S (2005) Computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty: comparative results in a preliminary series of 72 cases. Acta Orthop Belg 71(6):696–702Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    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(1):264–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    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(2):194–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pang HN, Yeo SJ, Chong HC, Chin PL, Ong J, Lo NN (2011) Computer-assisted gap balancing technique improves outcome in total knee arthroplasty, compared with conventional measured resection technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19(9):1496–1503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Johnson DR, Dennis DA, Kindsfater KA, Kim RH (2013) Evaluation of total knee arthroplasty performed with and without computer navigation: a bilateral total knee arthroplasty study. J Arthroplast 28(3):455–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Saragaglia D, Sigwalt L, Gaillot J, Morin V, Rubens-Duval B, Pailhé R (2017) Results with eight and a half years average follow-up on two hundred and eight e-Motion FP® knee prostheses, fitted using computer navigation for knee osteoarthritis in patients with over ten degrees genu varum. Int OrthopGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    de Steiger RN, Liu YL, Graves SE (2015) Computer navigation for total knee arthroplasty reduces revision rate for patients less than sixty-five years of age. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97(8):635–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tigani D, Masetti G, Sabbioni G, Ben Ayad R, Filanti M, Fosco M (2012) Computer-assisted surgery as indication of choice: total knee arthroplasty in case of retained hardware or extra-articular deformity. Int Orthop 36(7):1379–1385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Thiengwittayaporn S, Fusakul Y, Kangkano N, Jarupongprapa C, Charoenphandhu N (2016) Hand-held navigation may improve accuracy in minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Int Orthop 40(1):51–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fehring TK, Odum S, Griffin WL, Mason JB, Nadaud M (2001) Early failures in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 392:315–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Paxton EW, Furnes O, Namba RS, Inacio MC, Fenstad AM, Havelin LI (2011) Comparison of the Norwegian knee arthroplasty register and a United States arthroplasty registry. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(Suppl 3):20–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH, Shastri S, Jacoby SM (2002) Insall Award paper. Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today? Clin Orthop Relat Res 404:7–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Griffin FM, Insall JN, Scuderi GR (2000) Accuracy of soft tissue balancing in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 15(8):970–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Matsumoto T, Muratsu H, Tsumura N et al (2006) Joint gap kinematics in posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty measured by a new tensor with the navigation system. J Biomech Eng 128(6):867–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mihalko WM, Saleh KJ, Krackow KA, Whiteside LA (2009) Soft-tissue balancing during total knee arthroplasty in the varus knee. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 17(12):766–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Winemaker MJ (2002) Perfect balance in total knee arthroplasty: the elusive compromise. J Arthroplast 17(1):2–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tigani D, Sabbioni G, Ben Ayad R, Filanti M, Rani N, Del Piccolo N (2010) Comparison between two computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty: gap-balancing versus measured resection technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18(10):1304–1310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Matsumoto T, Muratsu H, Kubo S et al (2011) Soft tissue balance using the tibia first gap technique with navigation system in cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 36(5):975–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Muratsu H, Matsumoto T, Kubo S et al (2010) Femoral component placement changes soft tissue balance in posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 25(9):926–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Mahfouz MR, Walker SA, Tucker A (2004) A multicenter analysis of axial femorotibial rotation after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 428:180–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Siston RA, Giori NJ, Goodman SB, Delp SL (2006) Intraoperative passive kinematics of osteoarthritic knees before and after total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Res 24(8):1607–1614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Matsumoto T, Kubo S, Muratsu H et al (2013) Different pattern in gap balancing between the cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21(10):2338–2345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    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(2):80–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Li CH, Chen TH, Su YP, Shao PC, Lee KS, Chen WM (2008) Periprosthetic femoral supracondylar fracture after total knee arthroplasty with navigation system. J Arthroplast 23(2):304–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Novak EJ, Silverstein MD, Bozic KJ (2007) The cost-effectiveness of computer-assisted navigation in total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(11):2389–2397Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    MacDessi SJ, Jang B, Harris IA, Wheatley E, Bryant C, Chen DB (2014) A comparison of alignment using patient specific guides, computer navigation and conventional instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty. Knee 21(2):406–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Watters TS, Mather RC 3rd, Browne JA, Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr, Bolognesi MP (2011) Analysis of procedure-related costs and proposed benefits of using patient-specific approach in total knee arthroplasty. J Surg Orthop Adv 20(2):112–116Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Gustke KA, Golladay GJ, Roche MW, Jerry GJ, Elson LC, Anderson CR (2014) Increased satisfaction after total knee replacement using sensor-guided technology. Bone Joint J 96-B(10):1333–1338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Gustke KA, Golladay GJ, Roche MW, Elson LC, Anderson CR (2014) A new method for defining balance: promising short-term clinical outcomes of sensor-guided TKA. J Arthroplasty 29(5):955–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Gustke KA, Golladay GJ, Roche MW, Elson LC, Anderson CR (2014) Primary TKA patients with quantifiably balanced soft-tissue achieve significant clinical gains sooner than unbalanced patients. Adv Orthop 2014:628695Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Koenen P, Schneider MM, Fröhlich M, Driessen A, Bouillon B, Bäthis H (2016) Reliable alignment in total knee arthroplasty by the use of an iPod-based navigation system. Adv Orthop 2016:2606453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Iorio R, Mazza D, Drogo P et al (2015) Clinical and radiographic outcomes of an accelerometer-based system for the tibial resection in total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 39(3):461–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Maderbacher G, Schaumburger J, Keshmiri A et al (2015) Pinless navigation in total knee arthroplasty: navigation reduced by the maximum? Int Orthop 39(3):455–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryKobe University Graduate School of MedicineKobeJapan
  2. 2.Department of Trauma & Orthopaedic SurgeryAddenbrooke’s Cambridge University HospitalCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations