Computer-assisted versus intramedullary and extramedullary alignment system in total knee replacement: Long term follow-up.

Introduction: The aim of this work is to compare in a retrospective study, the radiological results of three series of different total knee replacements performed using Orthopilot computer-based alignment system (Group A, 31 patients), a totally intramedullary alignment system (Group B, 34 patients) and a totally extramedullary alignment system (Group C, 32 patients).

Materials And Methods: At a medium follow-up of 15 years, all patients underwent call interview for clinical update. Of the 115 patients initially enrolled in the study, only 97 were available for radiological assessment. Both standing long-leg antero-posterior radiographs and lateral radiographs of the knee had been taken for every patient at 1 year-follow-up and at the last follow-up.

Results: At the last follow-up, the mean hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA) was 179.1° (range: 176°-184°) for group A, 178.6° (range: 173°-186°) for group B and 177.8° (range: 172°-186°) for group C with no statistically significant difference among the 3 groups. The mean frontal femoral component angle (FFC) was 90.5° (range: 87°-94°) for group A, 91.05° (range: 85°-95°) for group B and 91.19° (range: 85°-96°) for group C and there was no statistically significant difference among the three groups. The mean frontal tibial component angle (FTC) was 89.9° (range: 83°-97°) for group A, 90.6° (range: 87°-95°) for group B and 90.8° (range: 86°-95°) for group C and there was no statistically significant difference among the three groups. The mean tibial component inclination in the sagittal plane was 1° (range: 3°-0°) for group A, 3.6° (range: 7°-0°) for group B and 3.1° (range: 6°-0°) for group C.

Discussion And Conclusion: Our results demonstrated statistically significant differences between computer-assisted and extramedullary group, in favour of navigated group in terms of implant position and mechanical alignment. Computer-assisted group showed superior but not statistically significant differences compared to intramedullary alignment system in terms of implant position and mechanical alignment. We advocate the use of computer-assisted system routinely in total knee replacement. As an alternative, we suggest the use of intramedullary system.