Background: The aim of introduction of navigation in knee arthroplasty was to further contribute to precision of endoprosthetic alignment.

Methods and material: A multicentre comparative study was conducted including 821 patients. The SEARCH knee system was used throughout the series. 555 TKA’s were implanted with the use of a navigation system (OrthoPilot) and 266 cases were operated using manual instrumentation. Alignment was radiographically evaluated at the three months follow-up with respect to mechanical axis and femoral and tibial axes using one-leg stance x-rays and standardized lateral radiographs.

Results: The summarized results of the series are shown in the table below. The chi-square test was applied for the statistical analysis.

Conclusions: Endoprosthetic alignment using the navigation system was superior to manual implantation technique on the average with respect to all parameters. Results were more consistent on the tibial side. The navigation system proved to be reliable. The overall results justify the further use and development of navigation tools in knee arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION

Nowadays, longevity of total knee arthroplasties is very acceptable. Survivorship analyses demonstrate a success in a range of 80% to more than 95% over a period of more than ten years (1–4). However, long-term results largely depend, amongst other factors, on restoration of physiological alignment of the lower limb (5–11). Jeffery et al. (12) reported a three percent loosening rate over eight years when knees were correctly aligned whereas insufficient alignment lead to prosthetic loosening in 24 percent. Rand and Coventry (13) found a 90 percent survivorship rate at ten years when the mechanical axis was aligned in a range from nought to four degrees of valgus. Valgus position of more than four degrees or varus alignment resulted in only 71 percent and 73 percent of survivorship respectively.

Recently, computer aided instrumentation systems (14,15) became available and preliminary results of small series were reported (16–17).

The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of computer integrated instrumentation for knee alignment.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

The OrthoPilot^® represents a computer controlled image supported alignment system. A 3-D Optotrak™ camera localizes infra-red diodes fixed to rigid bodies within the surgical field. Thereby a spatial coordinate reference system is provided. The localizer is linked to a UNIX work station which performs the operative protocol using a graphical interface and a foot pedal. The rigid bodies are fixed to the bones by bicortical screws. An intraoperative kinematic analysis and various additional landmarks lead to definition of the centres of hip, ankle and knee joint and sizing of endoprosthetic components. With the use of LED-equipped alignment instruments the femoral and tibial resection planes are determined.

The OrthoPilot^® navigation system is not dependant on CT data and no additional preoperative planning is therefore necessary.

A prospective comparative multicentre study in five institutions, four in Germany and one in France, was carried out. 821 patients with primary tricompartimental knee arthroplasty using the SEARCH LC knee (B|Braun AESCULAP) were included in the study. The OrthoPilot^® Navigation system was used in 555 cases and 266 knees were implanted with the use of conventional instrumentation. At the three months follow-up alignment was assessed using standardized one leg stance radiographs with regard to the mechanical axis and the femoral and tibial angels in the coronal plane. For the lateral femoral and tibial angels standard lateral x-rays were used. Prosthetic alignment was verified by an independent observer.

RESULTS

The radiographically assessed results were subdivided into three groups. An error of ± one degree in the radiographical measurements and small deviations caused by the play of surgical instruments have to be considered. With respect to the femoral and tibial angels in the ap and lateral view the group of very good clinical results was, therefore, defined in the range between ninty degrees and ± two degrees. Deviations of three and four degrees from the optimum were classified as being clinically acceptable. Aberrations of more than four degrees were classified as outliers. When measuring the mechanical axis deviations from fully precise femoral and tibial angels may add up. For this reason zero degrees ± three degrees were rated as a very good result, deviations of four to five degrees were considered to be acceptable and alignment beyond five degrees from the optimum was classified as an unsatisfactory result.

Mechanical axis:

35. 2% of the navigated cases were aligned at exactly zero degrees. This was achieved in only 24. 4% of the manual cases. 88. 6% of cases using navigation and 72. 2% in the manual group showed zero degrees and varus or valgus angles of up to three degrees. 8. 9% and 18. 1% of cases respectively showed deviations of four or five degrees of valgus or varus alignment representing an acceptable clinical result. In only 2. 5% of the navigation group aberrations of more than five degrees occurred. The rate of dissatisfying results was 9. 8% in the manual group.

Femoral axis (coronal plane):

In the navigation group 48. 1% of cases showed an alignment at exactly 90 degrees which was the case in only 33. 5% of the control group. Altogether, in 89. 4% of the navigated cases a very good result was observed. In the conventionally instrumented cases only 77. 1% very good results were found. There were 1. 6% outliers beyond the limits of four degrees in the navigation group in comparison to 4. 9% amongst the control cases.

Femoral axis (sagittal plane):

Very good results with up to two degrees of deviation from a ninety degree position were obtained in 75. 5% of navigated cases and 70. 7% of manual cases. 37. 3% and 34. 6% respectively showed an ideal alignment of exactly ninety degrees. Unsatisfactory results were observed in 9. 5% of the navigated cases and 9. 4% of the manual cases.

Tibial axis (coronal plane):

58. 7% of the computer assisted and 40. 6% of the reference cases were exactly aligned at rectangles. All in all, in 91. 9% navigated and only 83. 5% manual cases a very good result was obtained. Only 1. 1% outliers had to be observed in the navigation group whereas 3. 4% unsatisfactory results were registered with manual technique.

Tibial axis (sagittal plane):

44. 3% of the navigated cases and only 26. 7% of cases in the control group were aligned perpendicular to the dorsal tibial cortex, thus showing no posterior slope. Altogether, 81. 3% could be classified as very good clinical results in the computer assisted group. The corresponding rate of the manual group was 69. 9%. Equivalent values of 8. 6% in the navigation group and 8. 3% in the reference group were registered beyond the limits of four degrees deviation.

The additional operation time for the use of the navigation system is calculated between eight and ten minutes after having passed through the learning curve.

CONCLUSIONS

Knee navigation facilitates proper alignment of endoprosthetic components and with the use of the Ortho-Pilot^® system results are clearly more favourable in comparison to conventional instrumentation technique. In addition, the data obtained from literature demonstrate that the use of this navigation system contributes to reducing outliers in number. With the learning curve the OrthoPilot^® alignment system proved to gain in reliability.

Deviations from perfect alignment are still difficult to be classified into surgical or technical deficiencies.

Many technical and software improvements which were introduced in the meantime will, in addition, contribute to reliability and time saving.

Comparative studies with different navigation systems are not yet available. They might allow an even more profound insight into the possibilities and advantages or disadvantages of computer assisted knee alignment.

LITERATURE

(1) Knutson K, Lindstrand A, Lidgren L. Survival of knee arthroplasties, a nation-wide multicenter investigation of 8000 cases. J Bone Joint Surg. 1986; 68B: 795-803

(2) Scuderi GR, Insall JN, Windsor RE, Moran MC. Survivorship of cemented knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg. 1989; 798-409

(3) Nafei A, Kristensen O, Knudson HM, Hvid I, Jensen J. Survivorship analysis of cemented total condylar knee arthoplasty. J Arthoplasty 11, 1996;07-10

(4) Ranawat CS, Flynn WF, Saddler S, Hansraj KH, Maynhard MJ. Long-term results of total condylar knee arthroplasty. A 15-years survivorship study. Clin Orthop 1993; 286:94-102

(5) Lotke PA, Ecker ML. Influence of positioning of prosthesis in total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg 1977;59-A:77-79

(6) Hood RW, Vanni M, Insall JN. The correction of knee alignment in 225 consecutive total condylar knee replacements. Clin Orthop 1981;160:94-105

(7) Bargren JH, Blaha JD, Freeman MAR. Alignment in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 1983;173:178-183.

(8) Hvid I, Nielsen S. Total condylar knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Scand 1984;55:160-165

(9) Tew M, Waugh W. Tibial-femoral alignment and the results of knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg 1985;67-B:551-556

(10) Jonsson B, Astrom J. Alignment and long-term clinical results of a semi-constrained knee prosthesis. Clin Orthop 1988;226:124-128

(11) Ritter MA, Faris PM, Keating EM, Meding JB. Postoperative alignment of total knee replacement its effect on survival. Clin Orthop 1994;299:153-156

(12) Jeffery RS, Morris RW, Denham RA. Coronal alignment after total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg 1991;73-B:709-714

(13) Rand JA, Coventry MB. Ten-year evaluation of geometric total knee arthroplasty. 1988;232:168-173

(14) Leitner F, Picard F, Minfelde R, Schulz HJ, Clinquin P, Saragaglia D. Computer assisted knee surgical total replacement. In: CVRMed-MRCAS. Troccaz J, Grimson E, Mösges R (Eds). 1997; 630-638, Springer

(15) Delp SL, Stulberg SD, Davies BL, Picard F, Leitner F. Computer assisted knee replacement. Clin Orthop 1998; 354:49-56

(16) Picard F, Saragaglia D, Montbarbon E, Chaussard C, Leitner F, Raoult O. Computer assisted knee arthroplasty - preliminary clinical results with the Ortho-Pilot System. Abstract, 4th International CAOS Symposium, Davos, Switzerland, 1999

(17) Miehlke RK, Clemens U, Jens J-H, Kershally S. Navigation in der Knieendoprothetik - vorläufige klinische Erfahrungen und prospektiv vergleichende Studie gegenüber konventioneller Implantationstechnik, Z Orthop 2001; 139: 109-116