J Korean Orthop Assoc.  2018 Jun;53(3):226-233. 10.4055/jkoa.2018.53.3.226.

Eight to Ten Year Follow-Up Results of Total Knee Arthroplasty Using Electromagnetic Navigation System

• Cho JY
• Jeung SH
• Hong SM
• Suh JT
• Choi YY
• Rhee SJ

• KMID: 2429170
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4055/jkoa.2018.53.3.226

Abstract

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological results between patients who underwent total knee arthroplasty using the conventional method and the navigation-assisted method.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A retrospective review of was performed on 32 patients (40 knees) who underwent total knee arthroplasty between February 2004 and December 2006 and were followed-up for 8 to 10 years. Mechanical axis deviation, range of motion, radiologic position of the implants, and subjective clinical scores were measured and compared between 20 navigation-assisted total knee arthroplasties and 20 conventional total knee arthoplasties. Change in the values (α, β, γ, and δ angles) from the immediate postoperative period to the last follow-up were also calculated and compared between the two groups.
RESULTS
The mean range of motion in the navigation group was improved to 121.8°±16.3° (92°-140°) at the last follow-up, and the Western Ontario McMaster Universities osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score was 89.8±5.4 and the Knee Society score (KSS) was 91.5±7.5. The mean range of motion in the conventional group was 112.6°±25.6° (60°-140°) at the last follow-up. The WOMAC score was 84.2±10.6, and the KSS was 81.1±14.3. The α, β, γ, and δ angles of the implants were not significantly changed until the last follow-up. In the comparison between the two groups, only the mean range of motion (p=0.018) and the KSS (p=0.038) showed statistically better results in the navigation group than the conventional group.
CONCLUSION
Navigation-assisted total knee arthroplasty showed better KSS and range of motion compared with the conventional group in a cross-sectional study with 8 to 10 years of follow-up results. However, only the KSS showed a significant difference between the two groups by the amount of changes in the clinical and radiological results.

Keyword

total knee arthroplasty; navigation; long-term

MeSH Terms

Arthroplasty
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee*
Cross-Sectional Studies
Follow-Up Studies*
Humans
Knee
Magnets*
Methods
Ontario
Osteoarthritis
Postoperative Period
Range of Motion, Articular
Retrospective Studies

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 To compare the degree of polyethylene wear, the distance from the lowest end of the medial condyle of the femoral component to the tibial component and the distance from the lowest end of the lateral condyle of femoral component to the tibial component were measured at plain anteroposterior radiography.

Reference

1. Hamilton DF, Howie CR, Burnett R, Simpson AH, Patton JT. Dealing with the predicted increase in demand for revision total knee arthroplasty: challenges, risks and opportunities. Bone Joint J. 2015; 97:723–728.

2. Andriacchi TP. Biomechanics and gait analysis in total knee replacement. Orthop Rev. 1988; 17:470–473.

3. Bai B, Baez J, Testa N, Kummer FJ. Effect of posterior cut angle on tibial component loading. J Arthroplasty. 2000; 15:916–920.

4. Laskin RS. Total knee arthroplasty using an uncemented, polyethylene tibial implant. A seven-year follow-up study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993; 288:270–276.

5. Matsuda S, Miura H, Nagamine R, et al. Posterior tibial slope in the normal and varus knee. Am J Knee Surg. 1999; 12:165–168.

6. Mihalko WM, Krackow KA. Posterior cruciate ligament effects on the flexion space in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999; 360:243–250.

7. Bäthis 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.

8. Anderson KC, Buehler KC, Markel DC. Computer assisted navigation in total knee arthroplasty: comparison with conventional methods. J Arthroplasty. 2005; 20:S132–S138.

9. Clemens U, Miehlke RK. Experience using the latest Ortho-Pilot TKA software: a comparative study. Surg Technol Int. 2003; 11:265–273.

10. Matsumoto T, Muratsu H, Tsumura N, et al. Joint gap kinematics in posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty measured by a new tensor with the navigation system. J Biomech Eng. 2006; 128:867–871.

11. Ewald FC. The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989; 248:9–12.

12. 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. 47–54.

13. Saragaglia D, Picard F, Chaussard C, Montbarbon E, Leitner F, Cinquin P. Computer-assisted knee arthroplasty: comparison with a conventional procedure. Results of 50 cases in a prospective randomized study. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2001; 87:18–28.

14. Seon JK, Song EK. Navigation-assisted less invasive total knee arthroplasty compared with conventional total knee arthroplasty: a randomized prospective trial. J Arthroplasty. 2006; 21:777–782.

15. Decking R, Markmann Y, Fuchs J, Puhl W, Scharf HP. Leg axis after computer-navigated total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized trial comparing computer-navigated and manual implantation. J Arthroplasty. 2005; 20:282–288.

16. 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; 24:560–569.

17. Ishida K, Matsumoto T, Tsumura N, et al. Mid-term outcomes of computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011; 19:1107–1112.

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

19. Kim YH, Park JW, Kim JS. The clinical outcome of computer-navigated compared with conventional knee arthroplasty in the same patients: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, long-term study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017; 99:989–996.