Navigation-assisted versus conventional total knee replacement: no difference in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at 1 and 2 years

Introduction

Navigation technique for total knee replacement has been shown to improve accuracy of prosthesis alignment in several studies. The purpose was to compare the patient-reported outcome measures in primary total knee replacement (TKR) using navigation versus conventional surgical technique at 1- and 2-year follow-up.

Materials and methods

A retrospective review of prospectively collected patient-reported outcome data for 351 consecutively performed primary TKR was included in the study. The study group (N = 113) included patients who had Triathlon TKR using articular surface mounted (ASM Stryker^®) navigation technique and control group (N = 238) included patients who had Triathlon TKR using conventional jig. In addition to the WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index) and SF-36 (Medical Outcomes Trust Short Form-36), a short self-report questionnaire evaluating the level of satisfaction, quality of life and whether patients would undergo knee replacement again.

Results

WOMAC: no significant difference between the groups was noted in mean WOMAC pain, function and stiffness scores at 1- and 2-year follow-up. SF-36: no significant difference between the groups was seen except in the physical function component of score at 1 year (p = 0.019). Navigation group mean 56.78 (CI 51.06–62.5) versus conventional group mean 48.34 (44.68–52.01) but this difference was not observed at 2-year follow-up.

Conclusions

The overall patient-reported outcome scores improved after total knee replacement but appear to be comparable in both groups at 1- and 2-year follow-up.