TY - JOUR
T1 - Electromagnetic navigated versus conventional total knee arthroplasty—a five-year follow-up of a single-blind randomized control trial
AU - Clark, Andrew N.
AU - Hounat, Adam
AU - O'Donnell, Sinead
AU - May, Pauline
AU - Doonan, James
AU - Rowe, Philip
AU - Jones, Bryn G.
AU - Blyth, Mark J.G.
PY - 2021/10
Y1 - 2021/10
N2 - Background: The objective of this study is to provide the 5-year follow-up results of a randomized study comparing conventional versus electromagnetic computer navigated total knee arthroplasty. Methods: Analysis of 127 patients (66 navigated and 61 conventional surgeries) was performed from a prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Patient-reported outcome measures were collected at 5 years after surgery and compared with previously published 1-year clinical outcomes. Five-year surgical revision rates were collated and compared between intervention groups. Results: Overall, there have been continued improvements in the clinical scores of patients in both groups when compared with clinical data at 1 year; however, at 5 years, there is no statistical difference in any of the patient-reported outcome measures between conventional and navigated surgery. Interestingly, improved implant survivorship was observed in the navigated (0% revision rate) compared with the conventional group (4.9% all-cause revision rate). Conclusion: Electromagnetic computer navigated technology produces similar clinical outcomes compared with traditional surgery. Further work is required to monitor implant survivorship, and clinical outcomes with long-term follow-up, to determine the cost effectiveness of this technology.
AB - Background: The objective of this study is to provide the 5-year follow-up results of a randomized study comparing conventional versus electromagnetic computer navigated total knee arthroplasty. Methods: Analysis of 127 patients (66 navigated and 61 conventional surgeries) was performed from a prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Patient-reported outcome measures were collected at 5 years after surgery and compared with previously published 1-year clinical outcomes. Five-year surgical revision rates were collated and compared between intervention groups. Results: Overall, there have been continued improvements in the clinical scores of patients in both groups when compared with clinical data at 1 year; however, at 5 years, there is no statistical difference in any of the patient-reported outcome measures between conventional and navigated surgery. Interestingly, improved implant survivorship was observed in the navigated (0% revision rate) compared with the conventional group (4.9% all-cause revision rate). Conclusion: Electromagnetic computer navigated technology produces similar clinical outcomes compared with traditional surgery. Further work is required to monitor implant survivorship, and clinical outcomes with long-term follow-up, to determine the cost effectiveness of this technology.
KW - clinical follow-up
KW - EM navigation
KW - implant survivorship
KW - randomized controlled trial
KW - total knee arthroplasty
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85109085087&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.arth.2021.06.007
DO - 10.1016/j.arth.2021.06.007
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85109085087
SN - 0883-5403
VL - 36
SP - 3451
EP - 3455
JO - Journal of Arthroplasty
JF - Journal of Arthroplasty
IS - 10
ER -