Dataset Information

A randomized controlled trial to compare component placement in navigated total knee arthroplasty using original and streamlined registration processes.

ABSTRACT:

Background

This randomized controlled trial validated a redesigned version of navigated total knee arthroplasty software with a streamlined registration (Smart) against the previous version (Classic). The objectives were to determine if Smart software had the same accuracy of component positioning and whether registration and operative time were reduced.

Methods

A total of 220 patients were recruited and had a navigated total knee arthroplasty performed. With the exception of the software, all patients had the same perioperative care. At 6-week follow-up with an independent arthroplasty service, all patients had a computerized tomography scan. This was assessed by an independent radiologist to measure the mechanical alignment of the components.

Results

The mean postoperative mechanical femorotibial angles were equivalent between groups (mean difference -0.2°, 95% confidence interval -0.7° to 0.3°, P = .407). Component positions were similar in both groups. Mean registration time was significantly shorter for the Smart group (2 minutes 30 seconds ± 54 seconds) than the Classic group (3 minutes 23 seconds ± 39 seconds), P < .001. The mean operative time was 72 ± 12 minutes in both groups (P = .855). At 6-week follow-up, both groups had similar clinical outcomes with 96.5% of patients being satisfied or very satisfied.

Conclusions

The study verified that a reduced registration time did not alter the accuracy of component placement. However, despite a shorter registration time, the overall surgical time was not reduced.

SUBMITTER: Sciberras NC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5484974 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroducionThe malimplantation of the total knee arthroplasty (TKA) components is one of the main reasons for revision surgery. For determining the correct intraoperative femoral rotation several anatomic rotational axes were described in order to achieve a parallel, balanced flexion gap. In this cadaveric study prevalent used rotational femoral axes and a navigated functional rotational axis were compared to the flexion-extension axis defined as the gold standard in rotation for femoral TKA component rotation.Materials and methodsThirteen body donors with knee osteoarthritis (mean age: 78.85 ± 6.09; eight females and five males) were examined. Rotational computer tomography was performed on their lower extremities pre- and postoperatively. Knee joint arthroplasties were implanted and CT diagnostics were used to compare the preoperatively determined flexion-extension axis (FEA). The FEA is the axis determined by our surgical technique and serves as an internal reference. It was compared to other axes such as (i) the anatomical transepicondylar axis (aTEA), (ii) the surgical transepicondylar axis (sTEA), (iii) the posterior condylar axis (PCA) and (iv) the functional rotation axis (fRA).ResultsExamination of 26 knee joint arthroplasties revealed a significant angular deviation (p*** < 0.0001) for all axes when the individual axes and FEA were compared. aTEA show mean angular deviation of 5.2° (± 4.5), sTEA was 2.7° (± 2.2), PCA 2.9° (± 2.3) and the deviation of fRA was 4.3° (± 2.7). A tendency towards external rotation was observed for the relative and maximum axis deviations of the aTEA to the FEA, for the sTEA and the fRA. However, the rotation of the posterior condylar axis was towards inwards.ConclusionsAll axes showed a significant angular deviation from the FEA. We conclude that the presented technique achieves comparable results in terms of FEA reconstruction when compared with the use of the known surrogate axes, with certain deviations in terms of outliers in the internal or external rotation.