We report on the 5 year results of a randomized study comparing TKR performed using conventional instrumentation versus electromagnetic computer-assisted surgery. This study analysed patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) at 5 years utilising the American Knee Society Score (AKSS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), the Short Form 36 score and range of motion (ROM). Of the 200 patients enrolled 125 completed 5 year follow up, 62 in the navigated group and 63 in the conventional group. There were 28 deceased patients, 29 withdrawals and 16 lost to follow-up. There was improvement in clinical function in most PROMs from 1-5 year follow up across both groups. OKS improved from a mean of 26.6 (12–55) to 35.1 (5–48). AKSS increased from 75.3 (0–100) to 78.4 (−10–100), SF36 from 58.9 (2.5–100) to 53.2 (0–100). ROM improved by an average 7 degrees from 110 degrees to 117 degrees (80–135). There was no statistically significant difference in PROMs between the groups at 5 years. Patients undergoing revision surgery were identified from the dataset and global PACS. There were no revisions within 5 years in the navigated group and 3 revisions in the conventional group, two for infection and one for mid-flexion instability, giving an all cause revision rate of 3.06% at 5 years for this group. There appears to be no significant advantage in clinical function for patients undergoing TKR for OA of the knee with electromagnetic navigation when compared to conventional techniques. There may be an advantage in reducing early revision rates using this technology

Introduction. While clinically successful for decades, CR TKA is persistently compromised by inconsistent PCL function. Problems of mid-flexion instability, incomplete knee flexion, erratic kinematic behavior and posterior instability, not seen with PS devices, raise concerns about the consistency of the technique, and the devices used. Most TKA systems offer at least 2 different geometries of tibial inserts to address this clinical problem. We hypothesize these problems are a result of compromise of PCL anatomy. To avoid compromise to the PCL 3 steps are required: 1) The slope of tibial resection must be less than 5°; 2) the depth of tibial resection must be based off the insertion footprint of the PCL, not the deficiencies of the tibial articular surface; and 3) the tibial insert must be modified to allow intraoperative balancing of the PCL. Results. The CR Slope ™ implants and technique (Exactech) (“Posterior Cruciate Referencing Technique (PCRT)”) reflect this philosophy and have allowed consistent surgical intervention without PCL release and without multiple inserts. We present data identifying, the footprint, and the instrument and technique modifications that allow for predictable identification of the depth and angle of resection. At 2 years post implantation in the first 100 patients implanted, the study group has demonstrated similar operative time, LOS and Oxford knee scores (OKS), while ROM averaged 5° greater, and time to achieved flexion was decreased. Conclusion. The PCRT offers a new conceptual and clinical approach to predictable CR TKA