The accuracy of a hand-held navigation system in total knee arthroplasty

Accuracy of different navigation systems for femoral and tibial implantation in total knee arthroplasty: a randomised comparative study

PURPOSE

It remains to be established whether optical computed tomography (CT)-free and acceleration-based navigation systems differ in terms of implantation accuracy and clinical outcomes for total knee arthroplasty. This randomised prospective study compared the implantation accuracy of these two navigation systems in total knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

Optical CT-free navigation (ExactechGPS) or acceleration-based navigation (KneeAlign2) was randomly assigned to the left or right knee of 45 patients who underwent a single-stage bilateral total knee arthroplasty: the ExactechGPS (n = 45) and KneeAlign2 groups (n = 45) were compared. Component alignments were evaluated using three-dimensional computed tomography and radiography at pre- and post-surgery. Implantation accuracy of the component alignment, proportion of outliers, postoperative range of motion, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score were compared between the systems.

RESULTS

The implantation accuracies of the lower-extremity mechanical alignment, coronal femoral component angle, coronal tibial component angle, sagittal femoral component, axial femoral angle, and axial tibial angle had no significant difference between the groups. The implantation accuracy of the sagittal tibial component angle was superior in the ExactechGPS than the KneeAlign2 group (1.3° vs. 1.8°, P = 0.034). The proportions of outliers, range of motion, and JOA score had no significant difference between the groups.

CONCLUSION

In the tibial sagittal plane, there was a significant difference in the implantation accuracy, but its difference did not affect the clinical outcomes. Both navigation systems have clinically acceptable implantation accuracy.

Conventional instruments are more accurate for measuring the depth of the tibial cut than computer-assisted surgery in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective study

INTRODUCTION

The most commonly used tool for implant positioning are conventional instruments (CI) followed by computer-assisted surgery (CAS). A number of studies have investigated the cutting error of the tibial component when CAS is used, but most of them were focused on the cutting angles. The accuracy of CAS to determine the depth of the cut has not received much attention, even though implications are similar or worse, than with an angle mismatch.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was an ethics board approved, prospective study of 23 consecutive varus TKAs by a single surgeon. Implant positioning was performed using CAS; however, the depth of the tibial cut was determined with both CAS and CI. Targeted alignment was the mechanical axis and 3° of posterior slope. The planned and the achieved cut, as determined by CAS needed to match. The achieved cut was then measured using a caliper and compared to the depth of the cut as per CAS. Medial and lateral cuts were analyzed separately. Analysis of variance and Bland-Altman plots were used for the comparison.

RESULTS

Mean medial navigated cut was 6.3 (± 2.2) mm, mean measured medial cut was 6.6 (± 2.3) mm. Mean lateral navigated cut was 8.9 (± 1.8) mm, mean measured lateral cut was 8.8 (± 1.5) mm. There was a statistical significance for both the medial (p < 0.001) and the lateral (p = 0.004) navigated and measured cuts.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that the tibial cut depth, measured by the navigation, does not match the actual bony cuts performed, even if a perfect cut was achieved in both sagittal and coronal plane. Surgeons should be aware of the measurement error in the navigation system and potentially add an additional step for verifying the achieved depth of the cut.

Accuracy of tibial positioning in the frontal plane: a prospective study comparing conventional and innovative techniques in total knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Coronal alignment of the tibial component determines functional outcome and survival in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Innovative techniques for tibial instrumentation have been developed to improve accuracy and reduce the rate of outliers.

METHODS

In a prospective study, 300 patients were allocated to four different groups using a randomization process (two innovative and two conventional) techniques of tibial instrumentation (conventional: extramedullary, intramedullary; innovative: navigation and patient-specific instrumentation (PSI); n = 75 for each group). The aims were to reconstruct the medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) to 90° and the mechanical tibio-femoral axis (mTFA) to 0°. Both angles were evaluated and compared between all groups three months after the surgery. Patients who presented with a postoperative mTFA > 3° were classified as outliers.

RESULTS

The navigation and intramedullary technique both demonstrated that they were significantly more precise in reconstructing a neutral mTFA and MPTA compared to the other two techniques. The odd's ratio (OR) for producing outliers was highest for the PSI method (PSI OR = 5.5, p < 0.05; extramedullary positioning OR = 3.7, p > 0.05; intramedullary positioning OR = 1.7, p > 0.05; navigation OR = 0.04, p < 0.05). We could only observe significant differences between pre- and postoperative MPTA in the navigation and intramedullary group. The MPTA showed a significant negative correlation with the mTFA in all groups preoperatively and in the extramedullary, intramedullary and PSI postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

The navigation and intramedullary instrumentation provided the precise positioning of the tibial component. Outliers were most common within the PSI and extramedullary technique. Optimal alignment is dependent on the technique of tibial instrumentation and tibial component positioning determines the accuracy in TKA since mTFA correlated with MPTA pre- and postoperatively.

An accelerometer-based navigation did not improve the femoral component positioning compared to a modified conventional technique of pre-operatively planned placement of intramedullary rod in total knee arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Although the most commonly used method of femoral component alignment in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is intramedullary (IM) guides, this method demonstrated a limited degree of accuracy. Because of the femoral anterior bowing, the tip of the guide rod will impinge on the anterior cortex if a long rod is inserted. We hypothesized that the pre-operative planned insertion depth of the rod could increase the accuracy of the femoral component positioning in conventional TKA (modified conventional technique). Accelerometer-based, portable navigation device has been postulated to have better accuracy than conventional TKA in component positioning. The purpose of this study was to compare the post-operative femoral component alignment of TKA using the modified conventional technique with the accelerometer-based navigation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-five knees underwent TKA using the modified conventional technique and femoral component positioning was compared with 55 knees performed using the accelerometer-based navigation device. The femoral component alignment was evaluated with a CT-based three-dimensional software.

RESULTS

The mean absolute deviation from targeted alignment in the sagittal plane was significantly less in the modified conventional cohort than in the accelerometer-based navigation cohort (1.1° vs 2.6°, P < 0.001). In the modified conventional cohort, 96.4% had an alignment within 3° of a targeted angle in the coronal plane (vs 89.1% with the accelerometer-based navigation, P = 0.14), and 96.4% in the sagittal plane (vs 74.5% with the accelerometer-based navigation, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The modified conventional technique is a simple and equal to or more accurate method than the accelerometer-based navigation in positioning the femoral component in TKA at a mid-volume hospital.