J Korean Orthop Assoc.  2008 Dec;43(6):760-765.

Comparison of the Radiologic Results of Total Knee Arthroplasty using Electromagnetic Navigation with the Conventional Technique

• Won YY
• Cui WQ
• Lee DH
• Piao TH
• Hur JH
• Shin DS

Abstract

PURPOSE: We wanted to examine the accuracy of the lower limb alignment and implant positioning that was obtained with using the electromagnetic (EM) navigation technique.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We examined 64 patients who underwent 100 TKAs with using EM navigation technique from July 2006 to February 2007. Sixty-two patients who underwent 100 TKAs with using the conventional technique between August 2005 and July 2006 were used as controls. We assessed the mechanical axis and the alpha, beta, gamma and delta angles in the postoperative radiograph of each patient and we compared them among the two groups.
RESULTS
The patients in the EM navigation group achieved better accuracy than did the conventional group in terms of the postoperative mean mechanical axis (1.2degrees vs. 2.3degrees). Less variations in the coronal femoral component and the tibial component angle were observed in the navigation group (femur: 89.3degrees vs. 88.7degrees; tibia: 89.6degrees vs. 89.3degrees, respectively), although the difference in the coronal tibial component angle was not significant.
CONCLUSION
The use of EM navigation technique in TKA does not always guarantee the precise alignment of the mechanical axis in all planes, as compared to using the conventional technique. Yet it is useful for obtaining better coronal alignment of the femoral component.

Keyword

Knee; Osteoarthritis; Total knee arthroplasty; Electromagnetic navigation technique

MeSH Terms

Arthroplasty
Axis, Cervical Vertebra
Humans
Knee
Lower Extremity
Magnets
Osteoarthritis

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 (A) Anteroposterior radiograph showing the mechanical axis angle (MAA), the medial inclination angle of the femoral component with the mechanical axis of the femur (α angle), and the medial inclination angle of the tibial component with the mechanical axis of the tibia (β angle). (B) Lateral radiograph showing the angle of the femoral component with the anatomical axis of the femur (γ angle), and the angle of the tibial component with the anatomical axis of the tibia (δ angle).

• 

  Fig. 2 The broken transmitter during the operative procedure. (A) The line of the transmitter was torn because it was impinged in the foot positioner. (B) The wing of the transmitter was broken during fixation.

Reference

1. Knutson K, Lindstrand A, Lidgren L. Survival of knee arthroplasties. A nation-wide multicentre investigation of 8000 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1986. 68:795–803.

2. Riebel GD, Werner FW, Ayers DC, Bromka J, Murray DG. Early failure of the femoral component in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1995. 10:615–621.

3. Ritter MA, Faris PM, Keating EM, Meding JB. Postoperative alignment of total knee replacement. Its effect on survival. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994. 299:153–156.

4. Ranawat CS, Flynn WF Jr, Saddler S, Hansraj KK, Maynard MJ. Long-term results of the total condylar knee arthroplasty. A 15-year survivorship study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993. 286:94–102.

5. Song EK, Seon JK, Chung JY, Cho SG, Kong IK. Comparison of results of total knee arthroplasty performed using a navigation system and the conventional technique. J Korean Orthop Assoc. 2006. 41:1002–1007.

6. Voss F, Sheinkop MB, Galante JO, Barden RM, Rosenberg AG. Miller-Galante unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at 2- to 5-year follow-up evaluations. J Arthroplasty. 1995. 10:764–771.

7. Alan RK, Shin MS, Tria AJ Jr. Initial experience with electromagnetic navigation in total knee arthroplasty: a radiographic comparative study. J Knee Surg. 2007. 20:152–157.

8. Matziolis G, Krocker D, Weiss U, Tohtz S, Perka C. 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. 89:236–243.

9. Ranawat CS. History of total knee replacement. J South Orthop Assoc. 2002. 11:218–226.

10. Seon JK, Song EK, Yoon TR, Bae BH, Kim CY. The radiographic comparative study of the unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Manual versus navigation system. J Korean Orthop Assoc. 2006. 41:140–147.

11. Stulberg SD, Yaffe MA, Koo SS. Computer-assisted surgery versus manual total knee arthroplasty: a case-controlled study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006. 88:Suppl 4. S47–S54.

12. Haaker RG, Stockheim M, Kamp M, Proff G, Breitenfelder J, Ottersbach A. Computer-assisted navigation increases precision of component placement in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005. 483:152–159.

13. Ossendorf C, Fuchs B, Koch P. Femoral stress fracture after computer navigated total knee arthroplasty. Knee. 2006. 13:397–399.

14. Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS. Radiological assessment of osteoarthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis. 1957. 16:494–502.

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

16. Jenny JY, Boeri C. Unicompartmental knee prosthesis implantation with a non-image based navigation system: rationale, technique, case-control comparative study with a conventional instrumented implantation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2003. 11:40–45.

17. Mielke RK, Clemens U, Jens JH, Kershally S. Navigation in knee endoprosthesis implantation-preliminary experiences and prospective comparative study with conventional implantation technique. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 2001. 139:109–116.

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

19. Jenny JY, Mielke RK, Kohler S, et al. Total knee prosthesis implantation with a non image based navigation system: a multicentric analysis. Procs 70^th Annual Meeting AAOS, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2003. 96.

20. Fried MP, Kleefield J, Gopal H, Reardon E, Ho BT, Kuhn FA. Image-guided endoscopic surgery: results of accuracy and performance in a multicenter clinical study using an electromagnetic tracking system. Laryngoscope. 1997. 107:594–601.

21. Manwaring KH, Manwaring ML, Moss SD. Magnetic field guided endoscopic dissection through a burr hole may avoid more invasive craniotomies. A preliminary report. Acta Neurochir. 1994. 61:Suppl. S34–S39.

22. Lionberger DR. Stiehl , editor. The attraction of electromagnetic computerassisted navigation in orthopaedic surgery. Navigation and MIS in orthopedic surgery. 2007. 1st ed. New York: Springer;44–53.

23. Tria AJ Jr. The evolving role of navigation in minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty. Am J Orthop. 2006. 35:Suppl 7. S18–S22.

24. Song EK, Seon JK, Chung JY, Cho SG, Kong IK. Comparison of results of total knee arthroplasty performed using a navigation system and the conventional technique. J Korean Orthop Assoc. 2006. 41:1002–1007.