We performed a randomised controlled trial comparing
computer-assisted surgery (CAS) with conventional surgery (CONV)
in total knee replacement (TKR). Between 2009 and 2011 a total of
192 patients with a mean age of 68 years (55 to 85) with osteoarthritis
or arthritic disease of the knee were recruited from four Norwegian
hospitals. At three months follow-up, functional results were marginally
better for the CAS group. Mean differences (MD) in favour of CAS
were found for the Knee Society function score (MD: 5.9, 95% confidence
interval (CI) 0.3 to 11.4, p = 0.039), the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis
Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales for ‘pain’ (MD: 7.7, 95% CI 1.7 to
13.6, p = 0.012), ‘sports’ (MD: 13.5, 95% CI 5.6 to 21.4, p = 0.001)
and ‘quality of life’ (MD: 7.2, 95% CI 0.1 to 14.3, p = 0.046).
At one-year follow-up, differences favouring CAS were found for
KOOS ‘sports’ (MD: 11.0, 95% CI 3.0 to 19.0, p = 0.007) and KOOS
‘symptoms’ (MD: 6.7, 95% CI 0.5 to 13.0, p = 0.035). The use of
CAS resulted in fewer outliers in frontal alignment (>
3° malalignment),
both for the entire TKR (37.9% Cite this article:
We evaluated the rates of survival and cause
of revision of seven different brands of cemented primary total
knee replacement (TKR) in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register during
the years 1994 to 2009. Revision for any cause, including resurfacing
of the patella, was the primary endpoint. Specific causes of revision
were secondary outcomes. Three posterior cruciate-retaining (PCR) fixed modular-bearing
TKRs, two fixed non-modular bearing PCR TKRs and two mobile-bearing
posterior cruciate-sacrificing TKRs were investigated in a total
of 17 782 primary TKRs. The median follow-up for the implants ranged
from 1.8 to 6.9 years. Kaplan-Meier 10-year survival ranged from
89.5% to 95.3%. Cox’s relative risk (RR) was calculated relative
to the fixed modular-bearing Profix knee (the most frequently used
TKR in Norway), and ranged from 1.1 to 2.6. The risk of revision
for aseptic tibial loosening was higher in the mobile-bearing LCS
Classic (RR 6.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.8 to 12.1)), the
LCS Complete (RR 7.7 (95% CI 4.1 to 14.4)), the fixed modular-bearing
Duracon (RR 4.5 (95% CI 1.8 to 11.1)) and the fixed non-modular
bearing AGC Universal TKR (RR 2.5 (95% CI 1.3 to 5.1)), compared
with the Profix. These implants (except AGC Universal) also had
an increased risk of revision for femoral loosening (RR 2.3
(95% CI 1.1 to 4.8), RR 3.7 (95% CI 1.6 to 8.9), and RR 3.4 (95%
CI 1.1 to 11.0), respectively). These results suggest that aseptic
loosening is related to design in TKR. Cite this article:
Improving positioning and alignment by the use of computer assisted surgery (CAS) might improve longevity and function in total knee replacements. This study evaluates the short term results of computer navigated knee replacements based on data from a national register. Primary total knee replacements without patella resurfacing, reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register during the years 2005–2008, were evaluated. The five most common implants and the three most common navigation systems were selected. Cemented, uncemented and hybrid knees were included. With the risk for revision due to any cause as the primary end-point, 1465 computer navigated knee replacements (CAS) were evaluated against 8214 conventionally operated knee replacements (CON). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox regression analysis with adjustment for age, sex, prosthesis brand, fixation method, previous knee surgery, preoperative diagnosis and ASA category were used.Background
Patients and Methods
Tranexamic acid (TA) in total knee replacement surgery (TKR) has shown marked reduction in bleeding and blood transfusion. There are little data on TA in revision TKR. From February 2008 all patients having primary or revision TKR received TA 10mg/kg × 2. We whished to evaluate the effect and possible complications of TA. 49 patients had revision TKR from January to August 2010. 21 patients (group I) operated before the regular use of TA were compared to 28 patients (group II) receiving TA. The groups were compared according to bleeding, blood transfusion, postoperative complication and type of revision. Revision TKR was compared to 157 primary TKR (94 operated without TA (group III) and 63 who received TA (group IV).Background
Patients and Methods
There are few studies of total knee replacements with cemented tibia and uncemented femur (hybrid). Previous studies have not shown any difference in revision rate between different fixation methods, but these studies had few hybrid prostheses. This study evaluates the results of hybrid knee replacements based on data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR). Primary total knee replacements without patella resurfacing, reported to the NAR during the years 1999–2009, were evaluated. Hinged-, posterior stabilized- and tumor prostheses were excluded. LCS- and Profix prostheses with conforming plus bearing were included. With the risk for revision at any cause as the primary end-point, 2945 hybrid knee replacements (HKR) were evaluated against 20838 cemented knee replacements (CKR). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox regression analysis with adjustment for age, sex and preoperative diagnosis were used.Background
Patients and Methods
