Electromagnetic Navigated Versus Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty-A Five-Year Follow-Up of a Single-Blind Randomized Control Trial
Andrew N Clark, Adam Hounat, Sinead O'Donnell, Pauline May, James Doonan, Philip Rowe, Bryn G Jones, Mark J G Blyth, Andrew N Clark, Adam Hounat, Sinead O'Donnell, Pauline May, James Doonan, Philip Rowe, Bryn G Jones, Mark J G Blyth
Abstract
Background: The objective of this study is to provide the 5-year follow-up results of a randomized study comparing conventional versus electromagnetic computer navigated total knee arthroplasty.
Methods: Analysis of 127 patients (66 navigated and 61 conventional surgeries) was performed from a prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Patient-reported outcome measures were collected at 5 years after surgery and compared with previously published 1-year clinical outcomes. Five-year surgical revision rates were collated and compared between intervention groups.
Results: Overall, there have been continued improvements in the clinical scores of patients in both groups when compared with clinical data at 1 year; however, at 5 years, there is no statistical difference in any of the patient-reported outcome measures between conventional and navigated surgery. Interestingly, improved implant survivorship was observed in the navigated (0% revision rate) compared with the conventional group (4.9% all-cause revision rate).
Conclusion: Electromagnetic computer navigated technology produces similar clinical outcomes compared with traditional surgery. Further work is required to monitor implant survivorship, and clinical outcomes with long-term follow-up, to determine the cost effectiveness of this technology.
Keywords: EM navigation; clinical follow-up; implant survivorship; randomized controlled trial; total knee arthroplasty.
Crown Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Source: PubMed