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: