A controlled study, comparing computer- and conventional jig-assisted total knee replacement in six cadavers is presented. In order to provide a quantitative assessment of the alignment of the replacements, a CT-based technique which measures seven parameters of alignment has been devised and used. In this a multi-slice CT machine scanned in 2.5 mm slices from the acetabular roof to the dome of the talus with the subject’s legs held in a standard position. The mechanical and anatomical axes were identified, from three-dimensional landmarks, in both anteroposterior and lateral planes. The coronal and sagittal alignment of the prosthesis was then measured against the axes. The rotation of the femoral component was measured relative to the transepicondylar axis. The rotation of the tibial component was measured with reference to the posterior tibial condyles and the tibial tuberosity. Coupled femorotibial rotational alignment was assessed by superimposition of the femoral and tibial axial images. The radiation dose was 2.7 mSV.

The computer-assisted total knee replacements showed better alignment in rotation and flexion of the femoral component, the posterior slope of the tibial component and in the matching of the femoral and tibial components in rotation. Differences were statistically significant and of a magnitude that support extension of computer assistance to the clinical situation.

A technique for performing allograft-augmented revision total knee replacement (TKR) using computer assistance is described, on the basis of the results in 14 patients. Bone deficits were made up with impaction grafting. Femoral grafting was made possible by the construction of a retaining wall or dam which allowed pressurisation and retention of the graft. Tibial grafting used a mixture of corticocancellous and morsellised allograft. The position of the implants was monitored by the computer system and adjusted while the cement was setting. The outcome was determined using a six-parameter, quantitative technique (the Perth CT protocol) which measured the alignment of the prosthesis and provided an objective score.

The final outcomes were not perfect with errors being made in femoral rotation and in producing a mismatch between the femoral and tibial components. In spite of the shortcomings the alignments were comparable in accuracy with those after primary TKR. Computer assistance shows considerable promise in producing accurate alignment in revision TKR with bone deficits.