A prospective randomized study comparing navigation versus conventional total knee arthroplasty

• Main Authors: Rajkumar Selvanayagam, Vijay Kumar, Rajesh Malhotra, Deep Narayan Srivastava, Vijay Kumar Digge
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: SAGE Publishing 2019-05-01
• Series: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1177/2309499019848079

Background: Navigation is associated with improved accuracy in alignment. However, its influence on clinical outcome is inconclusive. The aim of this study was to compare the component alignment and functional outcome in patients undergoing navigation-assisted and conventional total knee replacement (TKR). Materials and method: A prospective randomized study consisting of two groups (group A and group B) was carried out. Group A consisted of patients undergoing TKR using conventional jig-based method, whereas group B consisted of patients undergoing TKR using computer navigation-assisted method. We measured and compared the coronal and sagittal plane alignment in X-ray and rotational alignment in computed tomography scan between both groups. Functional outcome was analysed using Knee Society Score (KSS) and Western Ontario and McMaster University scale (WOMAC) score. Results: A total of 50 patients were randomized into two groups A and B each with 25 patients. Navigation was associated with more accuracy in mechanical axis alignment ( p = 0.011) and femoral component rotation ( p = 0.033). The mean follow-up was 4.6 years (range 48–62 months). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups with respect to KSS and WOMAC score at the minimum follow-up of 4 years. Conclusion: We concluded that even though navigation-assisted system is associated with better accuracy, there was no difference in clinical outcome at an average follow-up of 4.6 years.