Electromagnetic navigated versus conventional total knee arthroplasty—a five-year follow-up of a single-blind randomized control trial

Clark, Andrew N. and Hounat, Adam and O'Donnell, Sinead and May, Pauline and Doonan, James and Rowe, Philip and Jones, Bryn G. and Blyth, Mark J.G. (2021) Electromagnetic navigated versus conventional total knee arthroplasty—a five-year follow-up of a single-blind randomized control trial. Journal of Arthroplasty, 36 (10). pp. 3451-3455. ISSN 0883-5403 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2021.06.007)

[thumbnail of Clark-etal-JA-2021-Electromagnetic-navigated-versus-conventional-total-knee]
Preview
 Text. Filename: Clark_etal_JA_2021_Electromagnetic_navigated_versus_conventional_total_knee.pdf
Accepted Author Manuscript
License: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 logo
Download (1MB)| Preview

Abstract

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.

ORCID iDs

Clark, Andrew N., Hounat, Adam, O'Donnell, Sinead, May, Pauline, Doonan, James, Rowe, Philip ORCID logoORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4877-8466, Jones, Bryn G. and Blyth, Mark J.G.;
CORE (COnnecting REpositories)