Understanding the Role of Computer Navigation in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: Commentary on an article by Seung Joon Rhee, MD, et al.: "A Comparison of Long-Term Outcomes of Computer-Navigated and Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty. A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials"

The Reverse Fragility Index: Interpreting the Current Literature on Long-Term Survivorship of Computer-Navigated Versus Conventional TKA: A Systematic Review and Cross-Sectional Study of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Despite the most recent American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons clinical practice guideline making a "strong" recommendation against the use of intraoperative navigation in total knee arthroplasty (TKA), its use is increasing. We utilized the concept of the reverse fragility index (RFI) to assess the strength of neutrality of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the long-term survivorship of computer-navigated and conventional TKA.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed including all RCTs through August 3, 2021, comparing the long-term outcomes of computer-navigated and conventional TKA. Randomized trials with mean follow-up of >8 years and survivorship with revision as the end point were included. The RFI quantifies the strength of a study's neutrality by calculating the minimum number of events necessary to flip the result from nonsignificant to significant. The RFI at a threshold of p < 0.05 was calculated for each study reporting nonsignificant results. The reverse fragility quotient (RFQ) was calculated by dividing the RFI by the study sample size.

RESULTS

Ten clinical trials with 2,518 patients and 38 all-cause revisions were analyzed. All 10 studies reported nonsignificant results. The median RFI at the p < 0.05 threshold was 4, meaning that a median of 4 events would be needed to change the results from nonsignificant to significant. The median RFQ was 0.029, indicating that the nonsignificance of the results was contingent on only 2.9 events per 100 participants. The median loss to follow-up was 27 patients. In all studies, the number of patients lost to follow-up was greater than the RFI.

CONCLUSIONS

The equipoise in long-term survivorship between computer-navigated and conventional TKA rests on fragile studies, as their statistical nonsignificance could be reversed by changing the outcome status of only a handful of patients--a number that was always smaller than the number lost to follow-up. Routine reporting of the RFI in trials with nonsignificant findings may provide readers with a measure of confidence in the neutrality of the results.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Status and future of modern technologies in arthroplasty : Results of a survey of the German Society for Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery (DGOU)

BACKGROUND

The orthopedic community is divided on the question of whether modern technologies in arthroplasty improve outcomes. Therefore, the aim of this initiative of the working group on intraoperative imaging and technology integration (Arbeitsgemeinschaft intraoperative Bildgebung und Technologieintegration, AGiTEC) is to initiate the collection of additional data for the scientific evaluation of modern technologies.

QUESTION

To what extent are modern technologies currently used and which implementations are planned? Do the members of the German Society for Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery (DGOU) consider the acquisition of additional data for scientific assessment necessary?

METHODS

Members of the DGOU were asked via an e‑mail survey about the distribution and projected introduction of modern technologies in arthroplasty. They were also asked whether sufficient data were collected for scientific evaluation and whether acquisition of additional data in studies or arthroplasty registries were considered necessary.

RESULTS

Of the 7923 probands surveyed, 428 completed the questionnaire in full (5.4%). It was found that individual implants and navigation are currently the most frequently used (31% and 29%, respectively). The largest increases in the next 2 years are projected for virtual reality and robotics (+30% and +23%, respectively), 85% of respondents indicated that insufficient data were collected for scientific evaluation, and 89% each requested initiation of multicenter studies and inclusion of technologies in the arthroplasty registry.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study should motivate the scientific community, industry, and those responsible for the arthroplasty registries to collect and analyze data for the scientific assessment of modern technologies.

[Effect of surgeon's handedness on distribution of prosthesis during primary total knee arthroplasty]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of the surgeon's handedness on the distribution of prosthesis during primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on 86 patients (100 knees) with primary TKA completed by the same right-handed surgeon between December 2016 and December 2018, including 72 cases of single knee and 14 of bilateral knees. The patients were divided into dominant group (right side) and non-dominant group (left side) according to the operating position of the surgeon and each group had 50 knees. There was no significant difference in gender, age, body mass index, disease duration, clinical diagnosis, preoperative Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score, and other general data between the two groups ( P>0.05). The operation time and complications were recorded in both groups. The function of knee was evaluated by HSS score. Hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA), mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA), and mechanical medial proximal tibial angle (mMPTA) were measured by using X-ray film of full-length lower extremity before TKA and at 2 weeks after TKA that were used to evaluate the coronal position of the prosthesis. Posterior distal femoral angle (PDFA) and posterior proximal tibial angle (PPTA) were measured by using lateral X-ray films at 3 months after operation that were used to evaluate the sagittal position of the prosthesis.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in operation time between the two groups ( t=-1.128, P=0.262). One case of posterior tibial artery thrombosis occurred in the dominant group, and 1 case of poor healing of the incision occurred in each of the dominant group and the non-dominant group. Patients in both groups were followed up 12-34 months with an average of 22.0 months. The HSS scores at last follow-up were 87.2±4.3 in the dominant group and 86.8±5.0 in the non-dominant group. There was no significant difference between the two groups ( t=0.471, P=0.639). No complications such as periprosthetic infection, prosthetic loosening, or periprosthetic fracture occurred during follow-up. There was no significant difference in the HKA, mLDFA, and mMPTA between the two groups before and after operation ( P>0.05). The differences in the incidence of sagittal femoral prosthesis malposition and PDFA between the two groups were significant ( P<0.05); however, there was no significant difference in the PPTA, the rate of femoral prosthesis distributed in the neutral position, the incidence of over-flexed femoral prosthesis, and the incidence of anterior femoral notch ( P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

The surgeon's handedness is one of the factors affecting the placement of the sagittal femoral prosthesis in primary TKA. The incidence of sagittal femoral prosthesis malposition could increase when the surgeon performs on the non-dominant side.