Clinical and radiological outcomes of computer-assisted versus conventional total knee arthroplasty at 5-year follow-up: Is there any benefit?

Abstract

Computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty (CAS) remains controversial. Some authors defend that its improvement in knee alignment and positioning positively impacts arthroplasty survival rates, while others have stated that there is minimal or no difference compared to the conventional technique (cTKA). This paper features a retrospective, single-center, single-surgeon study, evaluating CAS surgery vs. regular cTKA in patients who consecutively underwent surgery between 2015 and 2017 (60 CAS patients vs. 59 cTKA). Data collection includes surgery duration, length of stay, blood loss and both preoperative and postoperative clinical outcome evaluation using WOMAC, SF-12, Forgotten Joint Score and VAS. Radiograph evaluation includes the tibiofemoral angle, posterior condylar offset and its ratio, and notching frequency and measurement. A total of 119 patients were included: 60 in the CAS group and 59 in the cTKA. Mean follow-up was 5.61 years (Max 7.83–Min 5.02 years). No clinically relevant preoperative differences were observed between the groups. Postoperatively, both groups showed similar functional results (WOMAC, SF-12, FJS, KSS, and VAS) with similar complication rates. The CAS group had an increased surgery time by a mean of 12 min (107.02 ± 15.22 vs. 95.32 + 13.87; p = 0.00) as well as a higher notching frequency and size (40% vs. 13.60%; p = 0.013; 1.239 mm ± 1.7604 vs. 0.501 mm ± 1.4179; p = 0.031). CAS obtained similar functional, radiological, and complication rates to cTKA at the expense of increasing surgery time and notching frequency and size.