Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical, functional, and radiographic outcomes following total knee arthroplasty with patient-specific instrumentation, computer-assisted surgery, and manual instrumentation: a short-term follow-up study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

   The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical, functional, and radiographic outcomes following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) performed with patient-specific instrumentation (PSI), computer-assisted surgery (CAS), and manual instruments at short-term follow-up.

Methods

   122 TKAs were performed by a single surgeon: 42 with PSI, 38 with CAS, and 40 with manual instrumentation. Preoperative, 1-month, and 6-month clinical and functional outcomes were measured using the Knee Society scoring system (knee score, function score, range of motion, and pain score). Improvements in clinical and functional outcomes from the preoperative to postoperative period were analyzed. Preoperative and postoperative radiographs were measured to evaluate limb and component alignment.

Results

   Preoperative, 1-month postoperative, and 6-month postoperative knee scores, function scores, range of motion, and pain scores were highest in the PSI group compared to CAS and manual instrumentation. At 6-month follow-up, PSI TKA was associated with a statistically significant improvement in functional score when compared to manual TKA. Otherwise, there were no statistically significant differences in improvements among PSI, CAS, and manual TKA groups.

Conclusion

   The higher preoperative scores in the PSI group limits the ability to draw definitive conclusions from the raw postoperative scores, but analyzing the changes in scores revealed that PSI was associated with a statistically significant improvement in Knee Society Functional score at 6-month post-TKA as compared to CAS or manual TKA. This may be attributable to improvements in component rotation and positioning, improved component size accuracy, or other factors that are not discernible on plain radiograph.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hafez MA, Chelule KL, Seedhom BB, Sherman KP (2006) Computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty using patient-specific templating. Clin Orthop Relat Res 444:184

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ng VY, DeClaire JH, Berend KR, Gulick BC, Lombardi AV Jr (2012) Improved accuracy of alignment with patient-specific positioning guides compared with manual instrumentation in TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(1):99

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Nunley RM, Ellison BS, Zhu J, Ruh EL, Howell SM, Barrack RL (2012) Do patient-specific guides improve coronal alignment in total knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(3):895

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Spencer BA, Mont MA, McGrath MS, Boyd B, Mitrick MF (2009) Initial experience with custom-fit total knee replacement: intra-operative events and long-leg coronal alignment. Int Orthop 33(6):1571

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Nunley RM, Ellison BS, Ruh EL, Williams BM, Foreman K, Ford AD, Barrack RL (2012) Are patient-specific cutting blocks cost-effective for total knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(3):889

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Bathis 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 Jt Surg Br 86(5):682

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 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 Jt Surg Br 86(3): 372

    Google Scholar 

  8. 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 Arthroplast 20(5):618

    Article  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 Arthroplast 20(3):282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jenny JY, Boeri C (2001) Computer-assisted implantation of a total knee arthroplasty: a case-controlled study in comparison with classical instrumentation. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 87(7):645

    PubMed  CAS  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 Jt Surg Br 85(6):830

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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 Arthroplast 26(8):1259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Harvie P, Sloan K, Beaver RJ (2011) Three-dimensional component alignment and functional outcome in computer-navigated total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized study comparing two navigation systems. J Arthroplast 26(8):1285

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hernandez-Vaquero D, Suarez-Vazquez A, Iglesias-Fernandez S (2011) Can computer assistance improve the clinical and functional scores in total knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(12):3436

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Barrett WP, Mason JB, Moskal JT, Dalury DF, Oliashirazi A, Fisher DA (2011) Comparison of radiographic alignment of imageless computer-assisted surgery versus conventional instrumentation in primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 26(8):1273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Martin A, Wohlgenannt O, Prenn M, Oelsch C, von Strempel A (2007) Imageless navigation for TKA increases implantation accuracy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 460:178

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Martin A, von Strempel A (2006) Two-year outcomes of computed tomography-based and computed tomography free navigation for total knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 449:275

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Victor J, Hoste D (2004) Image-based computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty leads to lower variability in coronal alignment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 428:131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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 Jt Surg Am 89(2):236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Spencer JM, Chauhan SK, Sloan K, Taylor A, Beaver RJ (2007) Computer navigation versus conventional total knee replacement: no difference in functional results at 2 years. J Bone Jt Surg Br 89(4):477

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Ensini A, Catani F, Leardini A, Romagnoli M, Giannini S (2007) Alignments and clinical results in conventional and navigated total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 457:156

    Google Scholar 

  27. Stulberg SD, Yaffe MA, Koo SS (2006) Computer-assisted surgery versus manual total knee arthroplasty: a case-controlled study. J Bone Jt Surg Am 88(Suppl 4):47

    Google Scholar 

  28. Goebel D, Schultz W (2012) The Columbus knee system: 4-year results of a new deep flexion design compared to the NexGen full flex implant. Arthritis 2012:213817

  29. Yaffe M, Chan P, Goyal N, Luo M, Cayo M, Stulberg SD (2013) Computer-assisted versus manual TKA: no difference in clinical or functional outcomes at 5-year follow-up. Orthopedics 36(5):e627

    Google Scholar 

  30. Yaffe MA, Koo SS, Stulberg SD (2008) Radiographic and navigation measurements of TKA limb alignment do not correlate. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:2736–2744

    Google Scholar 

  31. Brouwer RW, Jakma TS, Brouwer KH, Verhaar JA (2007) Pitfalls in determining knee alignment: a radiographic cadaver study. J Knee Surg 20(3):210

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Hunt MA, Fowler PJ, Birmingham TB, Jenkyn TR, Giffin JR (2006) Foot rotational effects on radiographic measures of lower limb alignment. Can J Surg 49(6):401

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Lonner JH, Laird MT, Stuchin SA (1996) Effect of rotation and knee flexion on radiographic alignment in total knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 331:102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Senden R (2012) High variability in Knee Society Score between studies: how reliable is the Knee Society Score? In: AAOS 2012 annual meeting. San Francisco, CA

  35. Ghanem E, Pawasarat I, Lindsay A, May L, Azzam K, Joshi A, Parvizi J (2010) Limitations of the Knee Society Score in evaluating outcomes following revision total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg Am 92(14):2445

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 676 North Saint Clair, Suite 1350, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA

    Mark Yaffe, Michael Luo, Nitin Goyal, Philip Chan, Anay Patel, Max Cayo & S. David Stulberg

Authors
  1. Mark Yaffe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nitin Goyal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Philip Chan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anay Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Max Cayo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. S. David Stulberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Luo.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (xlsx 43 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yaffe, M., Luo, M., Goyal, N. et al. Clinical, functional, and radiographic outcomes following total knee arthroplasty with patient-specific instrumentation, computer-assisted surgery, and manual instrumentation: a short-term follow-up study. Int J CARS 9, 837–844 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-013-0968-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-013-0968-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation