Journal of Orthopedics and Joint Surgery

Register      Login

VOLUME 5 , ISSUE 1 ( January-June, 2023 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Mechanical Alignment and Functional Outcome of Orthoalign Navigation System vs Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty

Ahamed Sherif alias Irfan Sherif, AS Thennavan

Keywords : Conventional total knee replacement, Improved mechanical alignment, Navigation total knee replacement, Orthoalign navigation system, Prevents wear and implant loosening

Citation Information : Sherif AS, Thennavan A. Mechanical Alignment and Functional Outcome of Orthoalign Navigation System vs Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty. 2023; 5 (1):1-6.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10079-1103

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 03-01-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Introduction and purpose: Total knee replacement (TKR) is a common surgical procedure done for severe knee joint degeneration and arthritis. The deviations of mechanical axis (MA) greater than 3× from the normal neutral alignment have been correlated with worsening of clinical outcomes, abnormal wear, premature loosening, and early implant failure. The failure of conventional total knee replacement (CTKR) to achieve within 3° of the MA accounts for 30% of the TKR being unable to produce the desirable results. This study intended to compare the alignment outcome of accelerometer-based portable navigation system (orthoalign) with CTKR. Materials and methods: This is a prospective study with 68 cases divided into two groups of 34 each in conventional and navigation. Study period is from July 2019 to July 2021 where patients underwent TKR procedure in Kovai Medical Center and Hospital, Coimbatore. Preoperative evaluation data include age, sex, BMI, diagnosis, side of pathology, and knee range of motion (ROM). Radiological evaluation was done by X-rays includes full-length standing scanogram, anteroposterior (AP) and lateral view. Functional outcome was assessed by Knee Society Score (KSS) interval of 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Results and discussion: Navigation (orthoalign system) based TKR group showed improved mechanical alignment outcome compared to CTKR group but functional outcome was almost similar in both the groups which needs longer study duration and follow-up. Main objective of this study is to show improving mechanical alignment through navigation so that we can prevent abnormal wear, premature implant loosening, and failure.

  1. Gao X, Sun Y, Chen Z-H, et al. Comparison of the accelerometer-based navigation system with conventional instruments for total knee arthroplasty: a propensity score-matched analysis. J Orthop Surg 2019;14(1):223. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-019-1258-y
  2. Ritter MA, Davis KE, Meding JB, et al. The effect of alignment and BMI on failure of total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011;93(17):1588–1596. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.J.00772
  3. Ikawa T, Takemura S, Kim M, et al. Usefulness of an accelerometer-based portable navigation system in total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2017;99-B(8):1047–1052. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.99B8.BJJ-2016-0596.R3
  4. Sharkey PF, Lichstein PM, Shen C, et al. Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today—has anything changed after 10 years? J Arthroplasty 2014;29(9):1774–1778. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.07.024
  5. Rand JA, Trousdale RT, Ilstrup DM, et al. Factors affecting the durability of primary total knee prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;85(2):259–265. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200302000-00012
  6. D'Lima DD, Hermida JC, Chen PC, et al. Polyethylene wear and variations in knee kinematics. Clin Orthop 2001;(392):124–130. DOI: 10.1097/00003086-200111000-00015
  7. Mason JB, Fehring TK, Estok R, et al. Meta-analysis of alignment outcomes in computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty surgery. J Arthroplasty 2007;22(8):1097–1106. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2007.08.001
  8. Hetaimish BM, Khan MM, Simunovic N, et al. Meta-analysis of navigation vs conventional total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2012;27(6):1177–1182. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2011.12.028
  9. Blakeney WG, Khan RJK, Palmer JL. Functional outcomes following total knee arthroplasty: a randomised trial comparing computer-assisted surgery with conventional techniques. Knee 2014;21(2):364–368. DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2013.04.001
  10. Jeffery RS, Morris RW, Denham RA. Coronal alignment after total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1991;73(5):709–714. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.73B5.1894655
  11. Werner FW, Ayers DC, Maletsky LP, et al. The effect of valgus/varus malalignment on load distribution in total knee replacements. J Biomech 2005;38(2):349–355. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.02.024
  12. Bonner TJ, Eardley WGP, Patterson P, et al. The effect of post-operative mechanical axis alignment on the survival of primary total knee replacements after a follow-up of 15 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011;93(9):1217–1222. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.93B9.26573
  13. Sogabe A, Mukai N, Miyakawa S, et al. Influence of knee alignment on quadriceps cross-sectional area. J Biomech 2009;42(14):2313–2317. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.06.022
  14. Longstaff LM, Sloan K, Stamp N, et al. Good alignment after total knee arthroplasty leads to faster rehabilitation and better function. J Arthroplasty 2009;24(4):570–578. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2008.03.002
  15. Kim YH, Kim JS, Yoon SH. Alignment and orientation of the components in total knee replacement with and without navigation support: a prospective, randomised study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007;89(4):471–476. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.89B4.18878
  16. Hoffart HE, Langenstein E, Vasak N. A prospective study comparing the functional outcome of computer-assisted and conventional total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2012;94(2):194–199. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.94B2.27454
  17. Harvie P, Sloan K, Beaver RJ. Computer navigation vs conventional total knee arthroplasty: five-year functional results of a prospective randomized trial. J Arthroplasty 2012;27(5):667–672.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2011.08.009
  18. Lehnen K, Giesinger K, Warschkow R, et al. Clinical outcome using a ligament referencing technique in CAS versus conventional technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2011;19(6):887–892. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-010-1264-4
  19. de Steiger RN, Liu Y-L, Graves SE. Computer navigation for total knee arthroplasty reduces revision rate for patients less than sixty-five years of age. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015;97(8):635–642. DOI: 10.2106/jbjs.m.01496
  20. Cip J, Obwegeser F, Benesch T, et al. Twelve-year follow-up of navigated computer-assisted versus conventional total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized comparative trial. J Arthroplasty 2018;33(5):1404–1411. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.12.012
  21. Matziolis G, Adam J, Perka C. Varus malalignment has no influence on clinical outcome in midterm follow-up after total knee replacement. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2010;130(12):1487–1491. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-010-1064-9
  22. Abdel MP, Oussedik S, Parratte S, et al. Coronal alignment in total knee replacement: historical review, contemporary analysis, and future direction. Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(7):857–862. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.96B7.33946
  23. Graves SE, Davidson D, Ingerson L, et al. The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Med J Aust 2004;180(S5):S31–S34. DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2004.tb05911.x
  24. Keyes BJ, Markel DC, Meneghini RM. Evaluation of limb alignment, component positioning, and function in primary total knee arthroplasty using a pinless navigation technique compared with conventional methods. J Knee Surg 2013;26(2):127–132. DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1319788
  25. Kim YH, Park JW, Kim JS. The clinical outcome of computer-navigated compared with conventional knee arthroplasty in the same patients: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, long-term study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017;99(12):989–996. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.16.00791
  26. Barrington JW, Halaszynski TM, Sinatra RS, et al. Perioperative pain management in hip and knee replacement surgery. Am J Orthop Belle Mead NJ. 2014;43(4 Suppl):S1–S16.
  27. Baumbach JA, Willburger R, Haaker R, et al. 10-year survival of navigated versus conventional TKAs: a retrospective study. Orthopedics 2016;39(3 Suppl):S72–S76. DOI: 10.3928/01477447-20160509-21
  28. Baier C, Wolfsteiner J, Otto F, et al. Clinical, radiological and survivorship results after ten years comparing navigated and conventional total knee arthroplasty: a matched-pair analysis. Int Orthop 2017;41(10):2037–2044. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-017-3509-z
  29. Kim Y-H, Park J-W, Kim J-S. Computer-navigated versus conventional total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012;94(22):2017–2024. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.L.00142
  30. Ollivier M, Parratte S, Lino L, et al. No benefit of computer-assisted TKA: 10-year results of a prospective randomized study. Clin Orthop 2018;476(1):126–134. DOI: 10.1007/s11999.0000000000000021
  31. Jones CW, Jerabek SA. Current role of computer navigation in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2018;33(7):1989–1993. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.01.027
  32. Matassi F, Cozzi Lepri A, Innocenti M, et al. Total knee arthroplasty in patients with extra-articular deformity: restoration of mechanical alignment using accelerometer-based navigation system. J Arthroplasty 2019;34(4):676–681. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.12.042
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.