Intraoperative Assessment with Computer Navigation

  • Gianmarco V. M. Regazzola
  • Myles R. J. Coolican


Soft tissue balancing in total knee replacement (TKR) is paramount to obtain optimal stability of the joint, improve kinematics, produce equal load on each side of the prosthetic components and decrease component wear [1]. Whilst the role of computer navigation is well established as the most accurate means of obtaining desired coronal and sagittal alignment, its role in soft tissue balancing is more recent. The use of navigation data allows the surgeon to recognise imbalance including midflexion instability, excessive tightness in flexion, failure to resolve flexion contractures and persisting pathological recurvatum. Navigation derived information allows the surgeon a real time assessment of stability throughout the flexion arc and importantly these objective measurements enable the surgeon to address the abnormalities and confirm resolution before the patient leaves the operating room


  1. 1.
    Seon JK et al. In vivo stability of total knee arthroplasty using a navigation system. Int Orthop. 2007;31(1):45–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sharkey PF et al. Insall award paper. Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;404:7–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Roche M, Elson L, Anderson C. Dynamic soft tissue balancing in total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 2014;45(2):157–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kurtz SM et al. Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement: national projections from 2010 to 2030. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(10):2606–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle 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(15):1377–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Matziolis G et al. 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(2):236–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Decking R et al. Leg axis after computer-navigated total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized trial comparing computer-navigated and manual implantation. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20(3):282–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hetaimish BM et al. Meta-analysis of navigation vs conventional total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(6):1177–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jeffery RS, Morris RW, Denham RA. Coronal alignment after total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991;73(5):709–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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(4):560–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    de Steiger RN, Liu YL, Graves SE. Computer navigation for total knee arthroplasty reduces revision rate for patients less than sixty-five years of age. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(8):635–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Griffin FM, Insall JN, Scuderi GR. Accuracy of soft tissue balancing in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15(8):970–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dennis DA et al. Gap balancing versus measured resection technique for total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(1):102–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Arima J et al. Femoral rotational alignment, based on the anteroposterior axis, in total knee arthroplasty in a valgus knee. A technical note. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77(9):1331–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Berger RA et al. Determining the rotational alignment of the femoral component in total knee arthroplasty using the epicondylar axis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;286:40–7.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Olcott CW, Scott RD. A comparison of 4 intraoperative methods to determine femoral component rotation during total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15(1):22–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jerosch J et al. Interindividual reproducibility in perioperative rotational alignment of femoral components in knee prosthetic surgery using the transepicondylar axis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2002;10(3):194–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Poilvache PL et al. Rotational landmarks and sizing of the distal femur in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;331:35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Griffin FM, Insall JN, Scuderi GR. The posterior condylar angle in osteoarthritic knees. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13(7):812–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Parker DA et al. Safety of combined use of local anesthetic infiltration and reinfusion drains in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24(6):918–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Widmer B et al. Incidence and severity of complications due to femoral nerve blocks performed for knee surgery. Knee. 2013;20(3):181–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Widmer BJ et al. Is femoral nerve block necessary during total knee arthroplasty?: a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(10):1800–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Smith TO, Hing CB. Is a tourniquet beneficial in total knee replacement surgery? A meta-analysis and systematic review. Knee. 2010;17(2):141–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lustig S et al. Sagittal placement of the femoral component in total knee arthroplasty predicts knee flexion contracture at one-year follow-up. Int Orthop. 2012;36(9):1835–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Whiteside LA. Soft tissue balancing: the knee. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17(4 Suppl 1):23–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nodzo SR, Franceschini V, Gonzalez Della Valle A. Intraoperative load-sensing variability during cemented, posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(1):66–70.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Saragaglia D, Chaussard C, Rubens-Duval B. Navigation as a predictor of soft tissue release during 90 cases of computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2006;29(10 Suppl):S137–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Engh GA. The difficult knee: severe varus and valgus. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;416:58–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Matsumoto T et al. Soft tissue balance measurement in posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty with a navigation system. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24(3):358–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Joseph J et al. The use of navigation to achieve soft tissue balance in total knee arthroplasty - a randomised clinical study. Knee. 2013;20(6):401–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Song EK et al. Comparative study of stability after total knee arthroplasties between navigation system and conventional techniques. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(8):1107–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pang HN et al. Computer-assisted gap balancing technique improves outcome in total knee arthroplasty, compared with conventional measured resection technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19(9):1496–503.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISAKOS 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gianmarco V. M. Regazzola
    • 1
  • Myles R. J. Coolican
    • 1
  1. 1.Sydney Orthopaedic Research InstituteChatswoodAustralia

Personalised recommendations