Accelerometer-based portable navigation, a faster guide compared to computer-assisted navigation in bilateral total knee arthroplasty-a randomized controlled study

Mapping the reporting practices in recent randomised controlled trials published in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy: A scoping review of methodological quality

The official medical journals of scientific societies advocate for high-quality standards. It's important to assess whether randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in influential journals, such as the hybrid journal of the European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, and Arthroscopy (ESSKA), adhere to reporting guidelines and best practices. Therefore, the present scoping review aimed to explore and map the reporting practices and methodological quality in recent RCTs published in the Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy (KSSTA) journal, focusing on identifying gaps in adherence to reporting guidelines and transparency. The study was preregistered and followed the PRISMA-ScR checklist. RCTs published in KSSTA between 2022 and 2023 were included. The search was conducted via PubMed. A two-stage selection process was employed, with two independent reviewers conducting study selection and data extraction. Data collected included study characteristics, intervention details, sample size calculation reporting, data transparency, and adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines. Critical appraisal was conducted using the JBI tool for RCTs. All included RCTs (n = 25) reported a predetermined minimum sample size. Study protocol preregistration was reported in 52% of the RCTs, while only 24% provided data availability statements. Most RCTs offering data availability indicated data would be shared upon request. Adherence to CONSORT guidelines was reported in 96% of studies, with only one RCT not adhering to recognized reporting standards. All the included studies adequately addressed statistical conclusion validity. However, internal validity was less consistently addressed across the studies.

Conclusions

While most recently published RCTs in KSSTA adhered to CONSORT guidelines, there is potential for improvement in the reporting of protocol preregistration and data availability statements. Although all studies reported sample size calculations, transparency in data sharing remains limited.

Level of Evidence

Level I.

Total knee replacement with an accelerometer-based, hand-held navigation system improves knee alignment: reliable in all patients

BACKGROUND

Achieving adequate alignment has traditionally been an important goal in total knee arthroplasty to achieve long-term implant survival. While accelerometer-based hand-held navigation systems (ABN) has been introduced as a way to achieve alignment, there is a limited body of evidence on its accuracy, especially in patients under 65 years with differing etiologies for knee arthritis. This study aimed to assess the precision of a specific ABN system in restoring the mechanical axis and report surgical variables and complications, with particular attention to younger patients.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of 310 primary TKA performed with ABN from May 2016 to February 2021. The mean patient age was 67.4 (SD 8.9) years, with 43% under 65 years and mean body mass index of 33.2 (SD 6.8). The average surgical time was 96.8 min (57-171) and the average follow-up was 3.3 years (1.9-6.7). Data regarding length of stay, pain, range of motion (ROM), complications, and reinterventions were collected from the institutional joint arthroplasty registry and the medical records. Preoperative mechanical axis measurements and postoperative radiological data, including mechanical axis, component alignment and mechanical alignment outliers were analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean preoperative mechanical axis was 175.4° (SD 7.6), with 248 knees (80%) in preoperative varus. The mean postoperative mechanical axis was 179.5° (SD 1.96) with 98% of knees falling within ± 3° of the neutral mechanical axis. Only 6 knees (2 varus, 4 valgus) fell outside the ± 3° range. And 3 knees (1 varus, 2 valgus) fell outside the ± 5° range. In the sagittal plane, 296 knees (95.5%) knees were within ± 3° of goal of 3 degrees of femoral flexion and 302 (97.4%) knees were within ± 2° of goal 1° of slope for tibial component. Far outliers (alignment outside ± 5° of targeted position) were found in 3 knees. Factors such as posttraumatic arthrosis, previous surgery, presence of retained hardware, and age below 65 years were not associated with increase in alignment outliers and far outliers. No complications related to the navigation system were observed. There were 22 complications and 20 reoperations, including 2 revisions for periprosthetic joint infection and 1 revision for flexion instability. Patients that required knee manipulation achieved an ultimate flexion of 110° (SD 14.1).

CONCLUSIONS

The ABN system proved to be user-friendly and accurate in reducing alignment outliers in both coronal and sagittal planes in all patient populations. It offers a straightforward navigation solution while preserving surgeon autonomy and the use of traditional surgical tools. These findings advocate for the integration of this navigation system as a valuable tool to enhance the precision of TKA surgery in all patient groups.

The Accuracy of a Portable Accelerometer-Based Navigation System for Tibial Alignment Can be Reliable during Total Knee Arthroplasty for Obese Patients

A portable accelerometer-based navigation system can be useful for achieving the target alignment. Tibial registration is based on the medial and lateral malleoli; however, the identification of landmarks may be difficult in obese (body mass index [BMI] >30 kg/m2) patients whose bones are not easily palpable from the body surface. This study compared tibial component alignment achieved using a portable accelerometer-based navigation system (Knee Align 2 [KA2]) in obese and control groups and aimed to validate the accuracy of bone cutting in obese patients. A total of 210 knees that underwent primary total knee arthroplasty using the KA2 system were included. After 1:3 propensity score matching, there were 32 and 96 knees in the BMI >30 group (group O) and BMI ≤30 group (group C), respectively. The absolute deviations of the tibial implant from the intended alignment were evaluated in the coronal plane (hip-knee-ankle [HKA] angle and medial proximal tibial angle) and sagittal plane (posterior tibial slope [PTS]). The inlier rate of each cohort, which was defined as tibial component alignment within 2 degrees of the intended alignment, was investigated. In the coronal plane, the absolute deviations of the HKA and MPTA from the intended alignment were 2.2 ± 1.8 degrees and 1.8 ± 1.5 degrees in group C and 1.7 ± 1.5 degrees and 1.7 ± 1.0 degrees in group O (p = 1.26, and p = 0.532). In the sagittal plane, the absolute deviations of the tibial implant were 1.6 ± 1.2 degrees in group C and 1.5 ± 1.1 degrees in group O (p = 0.570). The inlier rate was not significantly different between group C and group O (HKA: 64.6 vs. 71.9%, p = 0.521; MPTA: 67.7 vs. 78.1%, p = 0.372; PTS: 82.2 vs. 77.8%, p = 0.667). The accuracy of tibial bone cutting for the obese group was comparable to that of the control group. An accelerometer-based portable navigation system can be useful when attempting to achieve the target tibial alignment in obese patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:  Level IV.

High degree of alignment precision associated with total knee arthroplasty performed using a surgical robot or handheld navigation

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the precision of bony resections during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) performed using different computer-assisted technologies.

METHODS

Patients who underwent a primary TKA using an imageless accelerometer-based handheld navigation system (KneeAlign2®, OrthAlign Inc.) or computed tomography-based large-console surgical robot (Mako®, Stryker Corp.) from 2017 to 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Templated alignment targets and demographic data were collected. Coronal plane alignment of the femoral and tibial components and tibial slope were measured on postoperative radiographs. Patients with excessive flexion or rotation preventing accurate measurement were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 240 patients who underwent TKA using either a handheld (n = 120) or robotic (n = 120) system were included. There were no statistically significant differences in age, sex, and BMI between groups. A small but statistically significant difference in the precision of the distal femoral resection was observed between the handheld and robotic cohorts (1.5° vs. 1.1° difference between templated and measured alignments, p = 0.024), though this is likely clinically insignificant. There were no significant differences in the precision of the tibial resection between the handheld and robotic groups (coronal plane 0.9° vs. 1.0°, n.s.; sagittal plane 1.2° vs. 1.1°, n.s.). There were no significant differences in the rate of overall precision between cohorts (n.s.).

CONCLUSIONS

A high degree of component alignment precision was observed for both imageless handheld navigation and CT-based robotic cohorts. Surgeons considering options for computer-assisted TKA should take other important factors, including surgical principles, templating software, ligament balancing, intraoperative adjustability, equipment logistics, and cost, into account.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Mechanical alignment tolerance of a cruciate-retaining knee prosthesis under gait loading—A finite element analysis

Component alignment is one of the most crucial factors affecting total knee arthroplasty’s clinical outcome and survival. This study aimed to investigate how coronal, sagittal, and transverse malalignment affects the mechanical behavior of the tibial insert and to determine a suitable alignment tolerance on the coronal, sagittal, and transverse planes. A finite element model of a cruciate-retaining knee prosthesis was assembled with different joint alignments (−10°, −7°, −5°, −3°, 0°, 3°, 5°, 7°, 10°) to assess the effect of malalignment under gait loading. The results showed that varus or valgus, extension, internal rotation, and excessive external rotation malalignments increased the maximum Von Mises stress and contact pressure on the tibial insert. The mechanical alignment tolerance of the studied prosthesis on the coronal, sagittal, and transverse planes was 3° varus to 3° valgus, 0°–10° flexion, and 0°–5° external rotation, respectively. This study suggests that each prosthesis should include a tolerance range for the joint alignment angle on the three planes, which may be used during surgical planning.

Comparison of navigation systems for total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Component alignment is a crucial factor affecting the clinical outcome of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Accelerometer-based navigation (ABN) systems were developed to improve the accuracy of alignment during surgery. This study aimed to compare differences in component alignment, clinical outcomes, and surgical duration when using conventional instrumentation (CONI), ABN, and computer navigation (CN) systems.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was carried out using the Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane databases. Articles that met the eligibility criteria were included in the study. Meta-analyses were performed using the Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager based on Cochrane Review Method. The variables used for the analyses were postoperative clinical outcome (PCO), surgical duration, and component alignment, including the hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle, coronal femoral angle (CFA), coronal tibial angle (CTA), sagittal femoral angle (SFA), sagittal tibial angle (STA), and the outliers for the mentioned angles. The mean difference (MD) was calculated to determine the difference between the surgical techniques for continuous variables and the odds ratio (OR) was used for the dichotomous outcomes.

Results

The meta-analysis of the CONI and ABN system included 18 studies involving 2,070 TKA procedures, while the comparison of the ABN and CN systems included 5 studies involving 478 TKA procedures. The results showed that the ABN system provided more accurate component alignment for HKA, CFA, CTA, and SFA and produced fewer outliers for HKA, CFA, CTA, and STA. However, while the ABN system also required a significantly longer surgical time than the CONI approach, there was no statistical difference in PCO for the two systems. For the ABN and CN systems, there was no statistical difference in all variables except for the ABN system having a significantly shorter surgical duration.

Conclusion

There was no significant difference in the accuracy of component alignment between the ABN and CN systems, but the ABN approach had a shorter surgical duration and at lower cost. The ABN system also significantly improved the accuracy of component alignment when compared to the CONI approach, although the surgery was longer. However, there was no significant difference in PCO between the CONI, ABN, and CN systems.

Accelerometer-Based Handheld Navigation Instrumentation in Total Knee Arthroplasty Decrease Blood Loss Compared to Conventional Instrumentation: A Prospective Comparative Study

Introduction Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) can be associated with significant peri- and post-operative blood loss necessitating blood transfusion. The blood loss may be relatively less when the accelerometer-based handheld navigation system (HHNS) is used, as there is neither a need for intramedullary breach nor additional pin insertions. The primary hypothesis was that HHNS instrumentation reduced perioperative blood loss when compared with conventional instrumentation, and to prove this, we compared the perioperative parameters like tourniquet time, hemoglobin loss, and estimated blood loss between patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty using conventional instrumentation with handheld navigation instrumentation. Methods This prospective comparative study involves 40 patients in the HHNS group and 40 patients in the conventional group based on the instrumentation used, respectively. Tourniquet was used in all the cases. Patient characteristics like age, sex, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) were recorded. The perioperative parameters like tourniquet time, the estimated blood loss, hemoglobin loss, blood transfusions, and the number of units transfused were recorded and compared between the groups. Results There was no significant difference in age, BMI, ASA grade, or CCI between the two groups. The tourniquet time was 83.7 ± 9.6 in the navigation and 73.9 ± 10.3 in the conventional group. The estimated Hb loss was lower at 2.5 ± 1.6 in the HHNS group compared to 3.0 ± 1.8 in the conventional group (p<0.001). Similarly, estimated blood loss was also lower at 830 ± 285ml for the HHNS group compared to 1088 ± 228 in the conventional group. Two patients in the navigation group had a total of four units transfused, whereas three patients in the conventional group had five units of blood transfusion. Conclusions The primary hypothesis that HHNS reduced perioperative blood loss was confirmed by the results of our study. We demonstrated that HHNS instrumentation significantly decreased the estimated blood loss, drain volume, and hemoglobin loss compared to conventional instrumentation with similar operating times. Though blood transfusions were seen in fewer patients, there was no significant reduction in blood transfusions by HHNS instrumentation.

Alignment accuracy and functional outcomes between hand-held navigation and conventional instruments in TKA: a randomized controlled trial

Background

This study assessed surgical accuracy and functional outcomes using hand-held accelerometer-based navigation following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Question: (1) Does hand-held navigation (the iAssist system) improve surgical accuracy (assessed with five parameters commonly used to evaluate surgical alignment: the hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA), femoral coronal angle (FCA), tibial coronal angle (TCA), femoral sagittal angle (FSA), and tibial slope angle (TSA)) compared to conventional instruments in TKA? (2) Which surgical alignment parameters among HKA, FCA, TCA, FSA, and TSA can obtain the most advantage from the iAssist system? (3) Does the iAssist system lead to better functional outcomes at two years of follow-up after TKA?

Methods

This parallel-group double-blinded randomized controlled trial recruited 60 patients (30 patients each in the iAssist and conventional group) with osteoarthritis who underwent primary TKA by a single surgeon at Siriraj Hospital. There was no loss to follow-up in the study. All procedures in both groups were performed using similar surgical exposure, prosthesis implant, perioperative and postoperative protocols. Participants in the iAssist group received the iAssist system as an assistive technique, while those in the conventional group only had conventional instruments. Surgical alignments (HKA, FCA, TCA, FSA, and TSA) were recorded using CT scan at six weeks post-operation. Functional outcomes were assessed with knee ROM, KSS, and EQ-5D at 6 months, 1 year and 2 years post-operation. Baseline characteristics including age, sex, the affected knee side, and body mass index were comparable between the two groups, similar to preoperative ROM, KSS, and EQ-5D.

Results

The mean operative time was relatively longer in the iAssist than the conventional group, although not statistically significant (88.1 ± 13.7 versus 83.4 ± 21.3; p = 0.314). Among the surgical alignment parameters evaluated, FCA was the only radiographic parameter with a statistically significant difference between the two groups and was closer to 90º in the iAssist group (89.4 ± 2.2 in the iAssist versus 87.2 ± 2.1 in the conventional group; p = 0.003). Also, there was a higher proportion of outliers in the conventional than the iAssist group (23.3% versus 10%; p = 0.086). Nonetheless, HKA and TCA did not differ between the two groups (p = 0.25 and 0.096, respectively), although the percentages of outliers were higher in the conventional than the iAssist group (HKA: 26.7% vs. 13.3%; p = 0.101 and TCA: 6.7% versus 0%; p = 0.078). Likewise, we observed other radiographic parameters had no significant group differences, including FSA and TSA. Furthermore, at two years post-operation, we found no differences between the iAssist and the conventional group in knee ROM (106.7 ± 14.6 versus 108.2 ± 12.7; p = 0.324), KSS (82.5 ± 6.4 versus 83.8 ± 3.4; p = 0.324), and EQ-5D (0.9 ± 0.2 versus 1.0 ± 0.1; p = 0.217). All functional outcomes were also comparable at 6 months and 12 months of follow-up postoperatively.

Conclusion

The iAssist technology increase surgical precision by allowing for a more precise FCA with fewer outliers than conventional equipment. iAssist had longer operative time. Functional outcomes and quality of life were not different.

Level of evidence:

I