Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Current state of the art in total knee arthroplasty computer navigation

  • Knee
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

Computer-assisted surgery in orthopaedics is passing through the initial adapter phase of technology adoption. It started more than 20 years ago, but the uptake of technology is still not widespread. The purpose of this article is to introduce the reader to the basic technology and familiarize with the terminology used in the computer navigation.

Methods

During this time, the technology has matured and we have the evidence to prove its benefits for patients. Not only does it help placing the prosthetic components in correct orientation, it also helps with other parameters like blood loss and fat embolism reduction. In addition to being a teaching and training tool, it has also opened new areas of research which now question the traditional practices. Since it is not in commonly used, the basic aspects of computer navigation are not very well known.

Results

This paper outlines some important definitions and restates the classification of navigation within the spectrum of computer-assisted technologies; it then elaborates on the key principles behind navigation in knee arthroplasty and goes through some of the differences between navigation systems. Finally, it describes in some detail the surgical steps with an image-free knee navigation system.

Conclusions

Computer-assisted navigation is not mainstream yet, but this article should help readers unfamiliar with the technology to understand the basic terms and how it actually works.

Level of Evidence

III.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Afonso, A, St Aubyn M (2006) Relative efficiency of health provision: a DEA approach with non-discretionary inputs. ISEG—School of Economics and Management, Department of Economics, University of Lisbon Economics Working Paper, (33)

  2. Anglin C, Ho KC, Briard JL, De Lambilly C, Plaskos C, Nodwell E, Stindel E (2008) In vivo patellar kinematics during total knee arthroplasty. Comput Aided Surg 13(6):377–391

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bae DK, Song SJ (2011) Computer assisted navigation in knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Surg 3(4):259–267

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Bäthis H, Perlick L, Tingart M, Lüring C, Perlick C, Grifka J (2004) Radiological results of image-based and non-image-based computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 28(2):87–90

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Bhandari S (2010) Inertial sensor based surgical navigation system for knee replacement surgery. U.S. Patent Application No. 12/775,464

  6. Bhattacharyya T, Blyler C, Shenaq D (2006) The natural history of new orthopaedic devices. Clin Orthop Relat Res 451:263–266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Brin YS, Nikolaou VS, Joseph L, Zukor DJ, Antoniou J (2011) Imageless computer assisted versus conventional total knee replacement. A Bayesian meta-analysis of 23 comparative studies. Int Orthop 35(3):331–339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Burnett RS, Haydon CM, Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB (2004) The john insall award: patella resurfacing versus nonresurfacing in total knee arthroplasty: results of a randomized controlled clinical trial at a minimum of 10 Years’ followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 428:12–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Burnett RSJ, Barrack RL (2013) Computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty is currently of no proven clinical benefit: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(1):264–276

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Carr AJ, Robertsson O, Graves S, Price AJ, Arden NK, Judge A, Beard DJ (2012) Knee replacement. Lancet 379(9823):1331–1340

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chapman GB, Elstein AS, Chapman GB, Sonnenberg FA (2000) Cognitive processes and biases in medical decision making. In: Chapman Gretchen B, Sonnenberg Frank A (eds) Decision making in health care: theory, psychology, and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 183–210

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cheng T, Zhao S, Peng X, Zhang X (2012) Does computer-assisted surgery improve postoperative leg alignment and implant positioning following total knee arthroplasty? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(7):1307–1322

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Choong PF, Dowsey MM, Stoney JD (2009) Does accurate anatomical alignment result in better function and quality of life? Comparing conventional and computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 24(4):560–569

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chopra SS, Hünerbein M, Eulenstein S, Lange T, Schlag PM, Beller S (2008) Development and validation of a three dimensional ultrasound based navigation system for tumor resection. Eur J Surg Oncol 34(4):456–461

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Clarke JV, Riches PE, Picard F, Deakin AH (2012) Non-invasive computer-assisted measurement of knee alignment. Comput Aided Surg 17(1):29–39

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Delp SL, Stulberg DS, Davies B, Picard F, Leitner F (1998) Computer assisted knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 354:49–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. De Steiger RN, Liu YL, Graves SE (2015) Computer navigation for total knee arthroplasty reduces revision rate for patients less than sixty-five years of age. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97(8):635–642

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. DiGioia AM, Jaramaz B, Colgan BD (1998) Computer assisted orthopaedic surgery: image guided and robotic assistive technologies. Clin Orthop Relat Res 354:8–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fu Y, Wang M, Liu Y, Fu Q (2012) Alignment outcomes in navigated total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(6):1075–1082

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hafez MA, Chelule KL, Seedhom BB, Sherman KP (2006) Computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty using patient-specific templating. Clin Orthop Relat Res 444:184–192

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hansen E, Bozic KJ (2009) The impact of disruptive innovations in orthopaedics. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(10):2512–2520

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Hetaimish BM, Khan MM, Simunovic N, Al-Harbi HH, Bhandari M, Zalzal PK (2012) Meta-analysis of navigation vs conventional total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 27(6):1177–1182

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hofstetter R, Slomczykowski M, Sati M, Nolte LP (2010) Fluoroscopy as an imaging means for computer-assisted surgical navigation. Comput Aided Surg 4(2):65–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jenny JY, Boeri C, Picard F, Leitner F (2004) Reproducibility of intra-operative measurement of the mechanical axes of the lower limb during total knee replacement with a non-image-based navigation system. Comput Aided Surg 9(4):161–165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kalairajah Y, Cossey AJ, Verrall GM, Ludbrook G, Spriggins AJ (2006) Are systemic emboli reduced in computer-assisted knee surgery? A prospective, randomised, clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88(2):198–202

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kim YH, Kim JS, Choi Y, Kwon OR (2009) Computer-assisted surgical navigation does not improve the alignment and orientation of the components in total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 91(1):14–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Khadem R, Yeh CC, Sadeghi-Tehrani M, Bax MR, Johnson JA, Welch JN, Shahidi R (2000) Comparative tracking error analysis of five different optical tracking systems. Comput Aided Surg 5(2):98–107

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Zhao K, Kelly M, Bozic KJ (2009) Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement: national projections from 2010 to 2030. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(10):2606–2612

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Lauterbur PC (1974) Magnetic resonance zeugmatography. Pure Appl Chem 40(1–2):149–157

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Lee DH, Park JH, Song DI, Padhy D, Jeong WK, Han SB (2010) Accuracy of soft tissue balancing in TKA: comparison between navigation-assisted gap balancing and conventional measured resection. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18(3):381–387

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lettl C, Herstatt C, Gemuenden HG (2006) Users’ contributions to radical innovation: evidence from four cases in the field of medical equipment technology. Res Dev Manag 36(3):251–272

    Google Scholar 

  32. Losina E, Walensky RP, Kessler CL, Emrani PS, Reichmann WM, Wright EA, Katz JN (2009) Cost-effectiveness of total knee arthroplasty in the United States: patient risk and hospital volume. Arch Intern Med 169(12):1113–1121

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Mason JB, Fehring TK, Estok R, Banel D, Fahrbach K (2007) Meta-analysis of alignment outcomes in computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty surgery. J Arthroplasty 22(8):1097–1106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Mayman D (2014) Handheld navigation in total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 45(2):185–190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. McConnell J, Dillon J, Kinninmonth A, Sarungi M, Picard F (2012) Blood loss following total knee replacement is reduced when using computer-assisted versus standard methods. Acta Orthop Belg 78(1):75–78

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Millar NL, Deakin AH, Millar LL, Kinnimont AW, Picard F (2011) Blood loss following total knee replacement in the morbidly obese: effects of computer navigation. Knee 18(2):108–112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Moody JE, Nikou C, Picard F, Levison T (2002) Computer-integrated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction system. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84A(Suppl 2):99–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Myden CA, Anglin C, Kopp GD, Hutchison CR (2012) Computer-assisted surgery simulations and directed practice of total knee arthroplasty: educational benefits to the trainee. Comput Aided Surg 17(3):113–127

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ong L, Mowat FS, Chan N, Lau E, Halpern MT, Kurtz SM (2006) Economic burden of revision hip and knee arthroplasty in medicare enrollees. Clin Orthop Relat Res 446:22–28

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Picard F, Moody J, Jaramaz B, DiGioia A, Nikou C, LaBarca RS (2000) A classification proposal for computer-assisted knee systems. medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2000. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 1145–1151

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  41. Picard F, Deakin AH, Clarke JV, Dillon JM, Gregori A (2007) Using navigation intraoperative measurements narrows range of outcomes in TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 463:50–57

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Picard F, Leitner F, Gregori A, Martin P (2007) A cadaveric study to assess the accuracy of computer-assisted surgery in locating the hip center during total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 22(4):590–595

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Picard F, Clarke J, Deep K, Gregori A (2014) Computer assisted knee replacement surgery: is the movement mainstream? Orthop Muscular Sys Curr Res 3(2):2–6

    Google Scholar 

  44. Picard F, Moholkar K, Gregori A, Deep K, Kinninmonth A (2014) Role of computer assisted surgery (CAS) in training and outcomes. Orthop Trauma 28(5):322–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Porter M (2015) Foreword from the chairman of the editorial board. National joint registry, 12th annual report: 11–12

  46. Rebal BA, Babatunde OM, Lee JH, Geller JA, Patrick DA, Macaulay W (2014) Imageless computer navigation in total knee arthroplasty provides superior short term functional outcomes: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 29(5):938–944

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Rivkin G, Liebergall M (2009) Challenges of technology integration and computer-assisted surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(Supplement 1):13–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Ruiz D, Koenig L, Dall TM, Gallo P, Narzikul A, Parvizi J, Tongue J (2013) The direct and indirect costs to society of treatment for end-stage knee osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95(16):1473–1480

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Russell D, Deakin A, Fogg QA, Picard F (2014) Non-invasive quantification of lower limb mechanical alignment in flexion. Comput Aided Surg 19(4–6):64–70

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Russell DF, Deakin AH, Fogg QA, Picard F (2014) Repeatability and accuracy of a non-invasive method of measuring internal and external rotation of the tibia. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22(8):1771–1777

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Scuderi GR, Fallaha M, Masse V et al (2014) Total knee arthroplasty with a novel navigation system within the surgical field. Orthop Clin North Am 45(2):167–173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH, Shastri S, Jacoby SM (2002) Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today? Clin Orthop Relat Res 404:7–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Sharkey PF, Lichstein PM, Shen C, Tokarski AT, Parvizi J (2014) Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today—has anything changed after 10 years? J Arthroplasty 29(9):1774–1778

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Siston RA, Giori NJ, Goodman SB, Delp SL (2007) Surgical navigation for total knee arthroplasty: a perspective. J Biomech 40(4):728–735

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Stulberg SD, Loan P, Sarin B (2002) Computer-assisted navigation in total knee replacement: results of an initial experience in thirty-five patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84A(Suppl 2):90–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Tigani D, Busacca M, Moio A, Rimondi E, Del Piccolo N, Sabbioni G (2009) Preliminary experience with electromagnetic navigation system in TKA. Knee 16(1):33–38

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Van Damme G, Defoort K, Ducoulombier Y, Van Glabbeek F, Bellemans J, Victor J (2005) What should the surgeon aim for when performing computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty? J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(suppl 2):52–58

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Victor J, Hoste D (2004) Image-based computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty leads to lower variability in coronal alignment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 428:131–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Wong KC, Kumta SM, Chiu KH, Antonio GE, Unwin P, Leung KS (2007) Precision tumour resection and reconstruction using image-guided computer navigation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(7):943–947

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Yan CH, Chiu KY, Ng FY et al (2015) Comparison between patients-specific instruments and conventional instruments. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23(12):3637–3645

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank William Picard for his help in manuscript preparation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, Golden Jubilee National Hospital, Agamemnon Street, Glasgow, G81 4DY, UK

    Frederic Picard & Kamal Deep

  2. Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, CCOM, 10 avenue Baumann, 67400, Illkirch, France

    Jean Yves Jenny

Authors
  1. Frederic Picard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kamal Deep
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jean Yves Jenny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frederic Picard.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Frederic Picard has patents and licenses with Brainlab via CMU, BBraun and Oxford University Press. He received financial support for symposia from Stryker, BBraun, Convatec and Blue Belt Technology. Kamal Deep is consultant for BBraun. He is the secretary of the CAOS International society. Their research institution received research funding from Stryker, BBraun, Bayer, Mathys, Zimmer, Convatec, BBT. Jean-Yves Jenny received royalties from Aesculap/ BBraun and is a paid consultant for Exactech and FH Orthopaedics.

Funding

There is no funding source.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent is not applicable in this review article.

Additional information

Relevance Review of current state of navigation in total knee arthroplasty with recent evidence is relevant to any arthroplasty surgeons to apply in clinical practice.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Picard, F., Deep, K. & Jenny, J.Y. Current state of the art in total knee arthroplasty computer navigation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24, 3565–3574 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4337-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4337-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation