COMPUTER-ASSISTED TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY WITH AND WITHOUT PREOPERATIVE IMAGING

Abstract

Purpose of the study: Compter-assisted surgery enables improved precision of prosthetic implantations, but the basis of data acquisition remains variable. The purpose of this study was to assess the radiological quality of a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) implanted with a computer-assisted surgical technique with or without pre-operative imaging.

Material and methods: This was a case-control study of a group of 40 patients who underwent TKA implanted with a navigation systm (N+) which was compared with a control group of patients who underwent the same procedure with a conventional technique (N-). The two groups were comparable for: age, gender, BMI, preoperative HKA. The same surgeon operated all patients using the same cemented posterior stabilized TKA. Outcome was analyzed by an independent operator. The same navigation system was used for all knees, with, for the first 20 knees, acquisition based on preoperative computed tomography and for the next 20 knee, intra-operative acquisition. Postoperatively, six radiographic parameters were studied for each knee on the ap and lateral views. An optimal interval was determined for each parameter and the number of optimal criteria was noted for each knee.

Results: The mean HKA was 177.5° in the N- group and 179.2° in the N+ group. The angle of implantation of the femoral piece was 90.3° in the N- group and 90° in the n+ group. The mean posterior tibial slope was 3.5° in the N+ group and 3.1° in the N- group. There was a significant difference for the tibial prosthetic angle in favor of the N+ group, i.e. 89° compared with 87.3° for the N- group. The overall quality of the implantation was considered optimal for 54.5% of knees in the N+ group and for 29.8% in the N- group. There was no significant difference between computed tomographic acquisition and intraoperative acquisition.

Discussion and conclusion: This study demonstrates that the results exhibit a distribution closer to the ideal values for the navigation group but that the difference is solely significant for the tibial implantation. This improvement requires a longer operative time of 18 minutes. The lack of any difference between the computed tomographic acquisition and the intraoperative acquisition suggests that intraoperative acquisition should be favored for reasons of cost and simplicity. Computed tomography imaging can still be useful for a precision of the biepicondylar line in certain complex situations such as revision arthroplasty.