Cargando…
No advantage with navigated versus conventional mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty—10 year results of a randomised controlled trial
PURPOSE: Computer-assisted surgery (CAS) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains a controversial area of surgical practice. The aim of this study is to report the ten-year revision rates and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) of a single-blinded, prospective, randomised controlled trial compari...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9957903/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36166095 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00167-022-07158-1 |
_version_ | 1784894921013985280 |
---|---|
author | Farhan-Alanie, Omer M. Altell, Tareq O’Donnell, Sinead May, Pauline Doonan, James Rowe, Philip Jones, Bryn Blyth, Mark J. G. |
author_facet | Farhan-Alanie, Omer M. Altell, Tareq O’Donnell, Sinead May, Pauline Doonan, James Rowe, Philip Jones, Bryn Blyth, Mark J. G. |
author_sort | Farhan-Alanie, Omer M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: Computer-assisted surgery (CAS) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains a controversial area of surgical practice. The aim of this study is to report the ten-year revision rates and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) of a single-blinded, prospective, randomised controlled trial comparing electromagnetically (EM) navigated and conventional TKA. METHODS: 199 patients were randomised to receive either EM navigated or conventional TKA where the aim of implantation was neutral mechanical alignment in all cases. Ten-year revision rates were collated and compared between the two intervention groups. Longitudinal PROMS data was collected prospectively at various time points up to 10 years post-operatively. RESULTS: Over the ten-year period, there were 23 deaths (22.8%) in the EM navigation cohort and 30 deaths (30.6%) in the conventional cohort. At 10 years post-operatively, there was no statistically significant difference in all cause revision between the EM navigation and conventional cohort (4.0 vs 6.1%, p = 0.429). When analysing causes of revision that might be influenced by utilising EM navigation, there was no statistically significant difference in revisions (3.0% EM navigated vs 4.1% conventional group, p = 0.591). Patients that received navigated TKAs had improved Oxford Knee Society, American Knee Society Score and range of motion at 3 months following surgery compared to conventional TKA (p = 0.002, p = 0.032, and p = 0.05, respectively). However, from 1 to 10 years post-operatively, both interventions had equivalent outcomes. CONCLUSION: There is no difference in revision rates or clinical outcomes comparing EM navigated versus conventional TKA at ten-year follow-up. The expected mortality rate makes it unlikely that a difference in revision rates will reach statistical significance in the future. In the setting of an experienced knee arthroplasty surgeon, it is difficult to justify the additional costs of CAS in TKA surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9957903 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-99579032023-02-26 No advantage with navigated versus conventional mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty—10 year results of a randomised controlled trial Farhan-Alanie, Omer M. Altell, Tareq O’Donnell, Sinead May, Pauline Doonan, James Rowe, Philip Jones, Bryn Blyth, Mark J. G. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Knee PURPOSE: Computer-assisted surgery (CAS) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains a controversial area of surgical practice. The aim of this study is to report the ten-year revision rates and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) of a single-blinded, prospective, randomised controlled trial comparing electromagnetically (EM) navigated and conventional TKA. METHODS: 199 patients were randomised to receive either EM navigated or conventional TKA where the aim of implantation was neutral mechanical alignment in all cases. Ten-year revision rates were collated and compared between the two intervention groups. Longitudinal PROMS data was collected prospectively at various time points up to 10 years post-operatively. RESULTS: Over the ten-year period, there were 23 deaths (22.8%) in the EM navigation cohort and 30 deaths (30.6%) in the conventional cohort. At 10 years post-operatively, there was no statistically significant difference in all cause revision between the EM navigation and conventional cohort (4.0 vs 6.1%, p = 0.429). When analysing causes of revision that might be influenced by utilising EM navigation, there was no statistically significant difference in revisions (3.0% EM navigated vs 4.1% conventional group, p = 0.591). Patients that received navigated TKAs had improved Oxford Knee Society, American Knee Society Score and range of motion at 3 months following surgery compared to conventional TKA (p = 0.002, p = 0.032, and p = 0.05, respectively). However, from 1 to 10 years post-operatively, both interventions had equivalent outcomes. CONCLUSION: There is no difference in revision rates or clinical outcomes comparing EM navigated versus conventional TKA at ten-year follow-up. The expected mortality rate makes it unlikely that a difference in revision rates will reach statistical significance in the future. In the setting of an experienced knee arthroplasty surgeon, it is difficult to justify the additional costs of CAS in TKA surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-09-27 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC9957903/ /pubmed/36166095 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00167-022-07158-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Knee Farhan-Alanie, Omer M. Altell, Tareq O’Donnell, Sinead May, Pauline Doonan, James Rowe, Philip Jones, Bryn Blyth, Mark J. G. No advantage with navigated versus conventional mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty—10 year results of a randomised controlled trial |
title | No advantage with navigated versus conventional mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty—10 year results of a randomised controlled trial |
title_full | No advantage with navigated versus conventional mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty—10 year results of a randomised controlled trial |
title_fullStr | No advantage with navigated versus conventional mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty—10 year results of a randomised controlled trial |
title_full_unstemmed | No advantage with navigated versus conventional mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty—10 year results of a randomised controlled trial |
title_short | No advantage with navigated versus conventional mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty—10 year results of a randomised controlled trial |
title_sort | no advantage with navigated versus conventional mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty—10 year results of a randomised controlled trial |
topic | Knee |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9957903/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36166095 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00167-022-07158-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT farhanalanieomerm noadvantagewithnavigatedversusconventionalmechanicallyalignedtotalkneearthroplasty10yearresultsofarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT altelltareq noadvantagewithnavigatedversusconventionalmechanicallyalignedtotalkneearthroplasty10yearresultsofarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT odonnellsinead noadvantagewithnavigatedversusconventionalmechanicallyalignedtotalkneearthroplasty10yearresultsofarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT maypauline noadvantagewithnavigatedversusconventionalmechanicallyalignedtotalkneearthroplasty10yearresultsofarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT doonanjames noadvantagewithnavigatedversusconventionalmechanicallyalignedtotalkneearthroplasty10yearresultsofarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT rowephilip noadvantagewithnavigatedversusconventionalmechanicallyalignedtotalkneearthroplasty10yearresultsofarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT jonesbryn noadvantagewithnavigatedversusconventionalmechanicallyalignedtotalkneearthroplasty10yearresultsofarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT blythmarkjg noadvantagewithnavigatedversusconventionalmechanicallyalignedtotalkneearthroplasty10yearresultsofarandomisedcontrolledtrial |