We compared lower limb coronal alignment measurements obtained pre- and post-operatively with long-leg radiographs and computer navigation in patients undergoing primary total knee replacement (TKR). A series of 185 patients had their pre- and post-implant radiological and computer-navigation system measurements of coronal alignment compared using the Bland-Altman method. The study included 81 men and 104 women with a mean age of 68.5 years (32 to 87) and a mean body mass index of 31.7 kg/m. 2. (19 to 49). Pre-implant Bland–Altman limits of agreement were -9.4° to 8.6° with a repeatability coefficient of 9.0°. The Bland–Altman plot showed a tendency for the radiological measurement to indicate a higher level of pre-operative deformity than the corresponding navigation measurement. Post-implant limits of agreement were -5.0° to 5.4° with a repeatability coefficient of 5.2°. The tendency for valgus knees to have greater deformity on the radiograph was still seen, but was weaker for varus knees. . The alignment seen or measured intra-operatively during TKR is not necessarily the same as the deformity seen on a standing long-leg radiograph either pre- or post-operatively. Further investigation into the effect of weight-bearing and surgical exposure of the joint on the mechanical femorotibial angle is required to enable the most appropriate intra-operative alignment to be selected

The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the accuracy of two different methods of navigated retrograde drilling of talar lesions. Artificial osteochondral talar lesions were created in 14 cadaver lower limbs. Two methods of navigated drilling were evaluated by one examiner. Navigated Iso-C. 3D. was used in seven cadavers and 2D fluoroscopy-based navigation in the remaining seven. Of 14 talar lesions, 12 were successfully targeted by navigated drilling. In both cases of inaccurate targeting the 2D fluoroscopy-based navigation was used, missing lesions by 3 mm and 5 mm, respectively. The mean radiation time was increased using Iso-C. 3D. navigation (23 s; 22 to 24) compared with 2D fluoroscopy-based navigation (14 s, 11 to 17)