Comparison of iASSIST Navigation System with Conventional Techniques in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes

The iASSIST navigation system is a handheld accelerometer‐based navigation system that has been applied in clinical practice in recent five years. This meta‐analysis aimed to compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes of iASSIST navigation with conventional surgical techniques for patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and to compare the surgery time between an iASSIST group and a conventional treatment group. This systematic review and meta‐analysis included all comparative prospective and retrospective studies published in Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Web of Science and the CNKI databases over the past 20 years. Inclusion criteria were studies that compared the iASSIST navigation system with conventional TKA. The primary outcomes were mechanical axis (MA) and outliers, which means postoperative MA varus or valgus of more than 3°. Secondary outcomes were coronal femoral angle (CFA) and coronal tibial angle (CTA). Knee Society Score (KSS) was used to evaluate functional outcome. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the methodological quality of included studies. Eight studies involving 558 knees were included in this meta‐analysis. Of these, 275 patients used the iASSIST navigation system and 283 used conventional surgical techniques. A total of 5 studies were considered high quality and the other 3 were considered to be of moderate quality. The occurrence of malalignment of >3° in the iASSIST group was 13.3%, compared with 29.04% in the conventional group. Postoperative MA of the iASSIST group was significantly better than that of the conventional group (I ² = 19%, OR = −0.92, 95% CI = −1.09 to −0.75, P < 0.00001). The iASSIST navigation system provided significantly increased accuracy in the coronal femoral angle (I ² = 79%, OR = −0.88, 95% CI = −1.21 to −0.54, P < 0.00001) and the coronal tibial angle (I ² = 34%, OR = 0.39, 95% CI = −0.48 to −0.30, P < 0.00001) compared with conventional techniques. However, the duration of surgery using the iASSIST procedure was longer and there was no significant difference in the short‐term KSS in the iASSIST group compared with the conventional group. We found that when pooling the data of included studies, the number of outliers was fewer in the iASSIST group, and compared with conventional TKA techniques, the iASSIST system significantly improved the accuracy of lower limb alignment but the duration of surgery was prolonged in addition to there being no apparent advantage in terms of short‐term functional score.