Aims

The aim of this study was to investigate the local recurrence rate at an extended follow-up in patients following navigated resection of primary pelvic and sacral tumours.

The aim of this prospective single-centre study was to assess the difference in clinical outcome between total knee replacement (TKR) using computerised navigation and that of conventional TKR. We hypothesised that navigation would give a better result at every stage within the first five years. A total of 195 patients (195 knees) with a mean age of 70.0 years (39 to 89) were allocated alternately into two treatment groups, which used either conventional instrumentation (group A, 97 knees) or a navigation system (group B, 98 knees). After five years, complete clinical scores were available for 121 patients (62%). A total of 18 patients were lost to follow-up. Compared with conventional surgery, navigated TKR resulted in a better mean Knee Society score (p = 0.008). The difference in mean Knee Society scores over time between the two groups was not constant (p = 0.006), which suggests that these groups differed in their response to surgery with time. No significant difference in the frequency of malalignment was seen between the two groups.

In summary, computerised navigation resulted in a better functional outcome at five years than conventional techniques. Given the similarity in mechanical alignment between the two groups, rotational alignment may prove to be a better method of identifying differences in clinical outcome after navigated surgery.

We previously compared the component alignment in total knee replacement using a computer-navigated technique with a conventional jig-based method. We randomly allocated 71 patients to undergo either computer-navigated or conventional replacement. An improved alignment was seen in the computer-navigated group. The patients were then followed up post-operatively for two years, using the Knee Society score, the Short Form-36 health survey, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index, the Bartlett Patellar pain questionnaire and the Oxford knee score, to assess functional outcome. At two years post-operatively 60 patients were available for assessment, 30 in each group and 62 patients completed a postal survey. No patient in either group had undergone revision. All variables were analysed for differences between the groups either by Student’s t-test or the Mann-Whitney U test. Differences between the two groups did not reach significance for any of the outcome measures at any time point. At two years postoperatively, the frequency of mild to severe anterior pain was not significantly different (p = 0.818), varying between 44% (14) for the computer-navigated group, and 47% (14) for the conventionally-replaced group. The Bartlett Patellar score and the Oxford knee score were also not significantly different (t-test p = 0.161 and p = 0.607, respectively). The clinical outcome of the patients with a computer-navigated knee replacement appears to be no different to that of a more conventional jig-based technique at two years post-operatively, despite the better alignment achieved with computer-navigated surgery

Aims

Periprosthetic femoral fracture (PPF) is a major complication following total hip arthroplasty (THA). Uncemented femoral components are widely preferred in primary THA, but are associated with higher PPF risk than cemented components. Collared components have reduced PPF rates following uncemented primary THA compared to collarless components, while maintaining similar prosthetic designs. The purpose of this study was to analyze PPF rate between collarless and collared component designs in a consecutive cohort of posterior approach THAs performed by two high-volume surgeons.

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of robotic arm-assisted bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (bi-UKA) with conventional mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty (TKA) during the first six weeks and at one year postoperatively.

Correct positioning and alignment of components during primary total knee replacement (TKR) is widely accepted to be an important predictor of patient satisfaction and implant durability. This retrospective study reports the effect of the post-operative mechanical axis of the lower limb in the coronal plane on implant survival following primary TKR.

A total of 501 TKRs in 396 patients were divided into an aligned group with a neutral mechanical axis (± 3°) and a malaligned group where the mechanical axis deviated from neutral by > 3°. At 15 years’ follow-up, 33 of 458 (7.2%) TKRs were revised for aseptic loosening. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed a weak tendency towards improved survival with restoration of a neutral mechanical axis, but this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.47).

We found that the relationship between survival of a primary TKR and mechanical axis alignment is weaker than that described in a number of previous reports.

Improvements in the surgical technique of total knee replacement (TKR) are continually being sought. There has recently been interest in three-dimensional (3D) pre-operative planning using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and CT. The 3D images are increasingly used for the production of patient-specific models, surgical guides and custom-made implants for TKR.

The users of patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) claim that they allow the optimum balance of technology and conventional surgery by reducing the complexity of conventional alignment and sizing tools. In this way the advantages of accuracy and precision claimed by computer navigation techniques are achieved without the disadvantages of additional intra-operative inventory, new skills or surgical time.

This review describes the terminology used in this area and debates the advantages and disadvantages of PSI.

We hypothesised that the use of computer navigation-assisted surgery for pelvic and sacral tumours would reduce the risk of an intralesional margin. We reviewed 31 patients (18 men and 13 women) with a mean age of 52.9 years (13.5 to 77.2) in whom computer navigation-assisted surgery had been carried out for a bone tumour of the pelvis or sacrum. There were 23 primary malignant bone tumours, four metastatic tumours and four locally advanced primary tumours of the rectum. The registration error when using computer navigation was <  1 mm in each case. There were no complications related to the navigation, which allowed the preservation of sacral nerve roots (n = 13), resection of otherwise inoperable disease (n = 4) and the avoidance of hindquarter amputation (n = 3). The intralesional resection rate for primary tumours of the pelvis and sacrum was 8.7% (n = 2): clear bone resection margins were achieved in all cases. At a mean follow-up of 13.1 months (3 to 34) three patients (13%) had developed a local recurrence. The mean time alive from diagnosis was 16.8 months (4 to 48).

Computer navigation-assisted surgery is safe and has reduced our intralesional resection rate for primary tumours of the pelvis and sacrum. We recommend this technique as being worthy of further consideration for this group of patients.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1417–24.

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% vs 17.9%, p = 0.042) and for the tibial component separately (28.4% vs 6.3%, p = 0.002). Tibial slope was better achieved with CAS (58.9% vs 26.3%, p < 0.001). Operation time was 20 minutes longer with CAS. In conclusion, functional results were, statistically, marginally in favour of CAS. Also, CAS was more predictable than CONV for mechanical alignment and positioning of the prosthesis. However, the long-term outcomes must be further investigated.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B:609–18.

Robots have been used in surgery since the late 1980s. Orthopaedic surgery began to incorporate robotic technology in 1992, with the introduction of ROBODOC, for the planning and performance of total hip replacement. The use of robotic systems has subsequently increased, with promising short-term radiological outcomes when compared with traditional orthopaedic procedures. Robotic systems can be classified into two categories: autonomous and haptic (or surgeon-guided). Passive surgery systems, which represent a third type of technology, have also been adopted recently by orthopaedic surgeons.

While autonomous systems have fallen out of favour, tactile systems with technological improvements have become widely used. Specifically, the use of tactile and passive robotic systems in unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) has addressed some of the historical mechanisms of failure of non-robotic UKR. These systems assist with increasing the accuracy of the alignment of the components and produce more consistent ligament balance. Short-term improvements in clinical and radiological outcomes have increased the popularity of robot-assisted UKR.

Robot-assisted orthopaedic surgery has the potential for improving surgical outcomes. We discuss the different types of robotic systems available for use in orthopaedics and consider the indication, contraindications and limitations of these technologies.