PDF icon PDF herunterladen
J Knee Surg 2020; 33(07): 691-703
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1685145
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Efficacy of Portable Accelerometer-Based Navigation Devices versus Conventional Guides in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-analysis

Han Sun   *
1   Department of Articular Orthopaedics, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Changzhou, P.R. China
,
Shuxiang Li   *
1   Department of Articular Orthopaedics, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Changzhou, P.R. China
,
Kun Wang
1   Department of Articular Orthopaedics, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Changzhou, P.R. China
,
Guofeng Wu
1   Department of Articular Orthopaedics, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Changzhou, P.R. China
,
Jian Zhou
1   Department of Articular Orthopaedics, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Changzhou, P.R. China
,
Xiaoliang Sun
1   Department of Articular Orthopaedics, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Changzhou, P.R. China
› Institutsangaben
Funding None.
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

06. Dezember 2018

18. Februar 2019

Publikationsdatum:
08. April 2019 (online)

   Lizenzen und Reprints
Preview

Abstract

Various studies have provided different conclusions regarding which component's alignment can be actually improved by a novel portable accelerometer-based navigation device (PAD) compared with the conventional guide (CON); the operative times and clinical outcomes reported by these studies also exhibited incongruity. Thus, this meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of PADs in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The Web of Science, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched. Studies published till July 2018 and comparing PAD with CON in treatment with TKA were identified. Sixteen studies in which 1,551 TKAs were reported were included. Results showed that PAD was significantly superior to CON in reducing tibial component alignment out of ±3 degrees, femoral coronal angle out of ±3 degrees, and overall mechanical alignment out of ±3 degrees. PAD can also help obtain a more accurate result of femoral coronal angle (degree); however, it requires a longer operative time than the CON group. The two groups were comparable in tibial component alignment out of ±2 degrees, tibial component posterior slope out of ±3 degrees, tibial component posterior slope out of ±2 degrees, femoral coronal angle out of ±2 degrees, femoral sagittal angle out of ±3 degrees, femoral sagittal angle out of ±2 degrees, tibial component alignment (degree), tibial component posterior slope (degree), femoral sagittal angle (degree), overall mechanical alignment (degree), blood loss, Knee Society knee score, Knee Society function score, Oxford Knee Score, Short Form-36 physical component score, Short Form-36 mental component score, and range of motion. In conclusion, compared with CON, PAD can help improve the femoral coronal angle as well as decrease the outliers out of ±3 degrees in femoral/tibial coronal angles and overall mechanical alignment. However, PAD did not show significant advantages in tibial and femoral component sagittal angles out of ±3 degrees, various outliers of ±2 degrees, most mean values of component alignments, operative time, and various functional or satisfactory scores.

Keywords

knee arthroplasty - conventional guides - computer-assisted navigation systems - accelerometers - hand-held navigation - meta-analysis

Ethical Approval

Meta-analysis collects relevant data from published articles, and thus, no ethics committee approval was needed for this meta-analysis.


* These authors contributed equally to this work.


 

  • References

  • 1 Hetaimish BM, Khan MM, Simunovic N, Al-Harbi HH, Bhandari M, Zalzal PK. Meta-analysis of navigation vs conventional total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27 (06) 1177-1182
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Ritter MA, Davis KE, Meding JB, Pierson JL, Berend ME, Malinzak RA. The effect of alignment and BMI on failure of total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93 (17) 1588-1596
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 MacDessi SJ, Jang B, Harris IA, Wheatley E, Bryant C, Chen DB. A comparison of alignment using patient specific guides, computer navigation and conventional instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty. Knee 2014; 21 (02) 406-409
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Brin YS, Nikolaou VS, Joseph L, Zukor DJ, Antoniou J. Imageless computer assisted versus conventional total knee replacement. A Bayesian meta-analysis of 23 comparative studies. Int Orthop 2011; 35 (03) 331-339
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Burnett RS, Barrack RL. Computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty is currently of no proven clinical benefit: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471 (01) 264-276
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Desseaux A, Graf P, Dubrana F, Marino R, Clavé A. Radiographic outcomes in the coronal plane with iASSIST™ versus optical navigation for total knee arthroplasty: a preliminary case-control study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2016; 102 (03) 363-368
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Scuderi GR, Fallaha M, Masse V, Lavigne P, Amiot LP, Berthiaume MJ. Total knee arthroplasty with a novel navigation system within the surgical field. Orthop Clin North Am 2014; 45 (02) 167-173
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Thiengwittayaporn S, Fusakul Y, Kangkano N, Jarupongprapa C, Charoenphandhu N. Hand-held navigation may improve accuracy in minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Int Orthop 2016; 40 (01) 51-57
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Moo IH, Chen JYQ, Chau DHH, Tan SW, Lau ACK, Teo YS. Similar radiological results with accelerometer-based navigation versus conventional technique in total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2018; 26 (02) 1-7
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Gharaibeh MA, Solayar GN, Harris IA, Chen DB, MacDessi SJ. Accelerometer-based, portable navigation (KneeAlign) vs conventional instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized comparative trial. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (03) 777-782
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Bero L, Rennie D. The Cochrane Collaboration. Preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. JAMA 1995; 274 (24) 1935-1938
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. ; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 2010; 8 (05) 336-341
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Higgins JPT. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. Available at: http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/ . Accessed May 1, 2015
    PubMed
  • 14 Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 2003; 73 (09) 712-716
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Fujimoto E, Sasashige Y, Nakata K, Yokota G, Omoto T, Ochi M. Technical considerations and accuracy improvement of accelerometer-based portable computer navigation for performing distal femoral resection in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (01) 53-60
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Goh GS, Liow MHL, Tay DK, Lo NN, Yeo SJ, Tan MH. Accelerometer-based and computer-assisted navigation in total knee arthroplasty: a reduction in mechanical axis outliers does not lead to improvement in functional outcomes or quality of life when compared to conventional total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (02) 379-385
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 17 Ikawa T, Takemura S, Kim M, Takaoka K, Minoda Y, Kadoya Y. Usefulness of an accelerometer-based portable navigation system in total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2017; 99-B (08) 1047-1052
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 18 Kawaguchi K, Michishita K, Manabe T, Akasaka Y, Higuchi J. Comparison of an accelerometer-based portable navigation system, patient-specific instrumentation, and conventional instrumentation for femoral alignment in total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res 2017; 29 (04) 269-275
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 19 Kinney MC, Cidambi KR, Severns DL, Gonzales FB. Comparison of the iASSIST handheld guidance system to conventional instruments for mechanical axis restoration in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (01) 61-66
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Liow MH, Goh GS, Pang HN, Tay DK, Lo NN, Yeo SJ. Computer-assisted stereotaxic navigation improves the accuracy of mechanical alignment and component positioning in total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2016; 136 (08) 1173-1180
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 21 MacDessi S, Solayar GN, Thatcher N, Chen DB. Radiological outcomes and operative time following total knee arthroplasty using accelerometer-based, portable navigation versus conventional inter-medullary alignment guides. Orthop J Sports Med 2016;4(02): supplement 1
    PubMed
  • 22 Matsumoto K, Ogawa H, Fukuta M, Mori N, Akiyama H. Comparative study for alignment of extramedullary guides versus portable, accelerometer-based navigation in total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 2018; 31 (01) 92-98
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Nam D, Cody EA, Nguyen JT, Figgie MP, Mayman DJ. Extramedullary guides versus portable, accelerometer-based navigation for tibial alignment in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized, controlled trial: winner of the 2013 HAP PAUL award. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (02) 288-294
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 24 Ueyama H, Matsui Y, Minoda Y, Matsuura M, Nakamura H. Using accelerometer-based portable navigation to perform accurate total knee arthroplasty bone resection in Asian patients. Orthopedics 2017; 40 (03) e465-e472
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 25 Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Schmid CH, Olkin I. The case of the misleading funnel plot. BMJ 2006; 333 (7568): 597-600
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Goh GS, Liow MH, Lim WS, Tay DK, Yeo SJ, Tan MH. Accelerometer-based navigation is as accurate as optical computer navigation in restoring the joint line and mechanical axis after total knee arthroplasty: a prospective matched study. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (01) 92-97
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 27 Lackey WG, Berend ME. Hand-held navigation in total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2012; 94 (11, suppl A): 151-152
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 28 Huang NF, Dowsey MM, Ee E, Stoney JD, Babazadeh S, Choong PF. Coronal alignment correlates with outcome after total knee arthroplasty: five-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27 (09) 1737-1741
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 29 Kim YH, Park JW, Kim JS, Park SD. The relationship between the survival of total knee arthroplasty and postoperative coronal, sagittal and rotational alignment of knee prosthesis. Int Orthop 2014; 38 (02) 379-385
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 30 Gromov K, Korchi M, Thomsen MG, Husted H, Troelsen A. What is the optimal alignment of the tibial and femoral components in knee arthroplasty?. Acta Orthop 2014; 85 (05) 480-487
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 31 Lustig S, Scholes CJ, Stegeman TJ, Oussedik S, Coolican MR, Parker DA. Sagittal placement of the femoral component in total knee arthroplasty predicts knee flexion contracture at one-year follow-up. Int Orthop 2012; 36 (09) 1835-1839
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 32 Lützner J, Dexel J, Kirschner S. No difference between computer-assisted and conventional total knee arthroplasty: five-year results of a prospective randomised study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2013; 21 (10) 2241-2247
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 33 Berend ME, Ritter MA, Meding JB. , et al. Tibial component failure mechanisms in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; (428) 26-34
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 34 Attar FG, Khaw FM, Kirk LM, Gregg PJ. Survivorship analysis at 15 years of cemented press-fit condylar total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2008; 23 (03) 344-349
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 35 Parratte S, Pagnano MW, Trousdale RT, Berry DJ. Effect of postoperative mechanical axis alignment on the fifteen-year survival of modern, cemented total knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010; 92 (12) 2143-2149
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 36 Kim YH, Park JW, Kim JS. Computer-navigated versus conventional total knee arthroplasty a prospective randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94 (22) 2017-2024
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 37 Ouanezar H, Franck F, Jacquel A, Pibarot V, Wegrzyn J. Does computer-assisted surgery influence survivorship of cementless total knee arthroplasty in patients with primary osteoarthritis? A 10-year follow-up study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2016; 24 (11) 3448-3456
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 38 Huang EH, Copp SN, Bugbee WD. Accuracy of a handheld accelerometer-based navigation system for femoral and tibial resection in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (11) 1906-1910
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 39 Millar NL, Deakin AH, Millar LL, Kinnimonth AW, Picard F. Blood loss following total knee replacement in the morbidly obese: effects of computer navigation. Knee 2011; 18 (02) 108-112
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 40 Buza III JA, Wasterlain AS, Thakkar SC, Meere P, Vigdorchik J. Navigation and robotics in knee arthroplasty. JBJS Rev 2017; 5 (02) 5-14
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar