Electromagnetic Navigated Versus Conventional Total Knee ArthroplastydA Five-Year Follow-Up of a Single-Blind Randomized Control Trial

Background: The objective of this study is to provide the 5-year follow-up results of a randomized study comparing conventional versus electromagnetic computer navigated total knee arthroplasty. Methods: Analysis of 127 patients (66 navigated and 61 conventional surgeries) was performed from a prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Patient-reported outcome measures were collected at 5 years after surgery and compared with previously published 1-year clinical outcomes. Fiveyear surgical revision rates were collated and compared between intervention groups. Results: Overall, there have been continued improvements in the clinical scores of patients in both groups when compared with clinical data at 1 year; however, at 5 years, there is no statistical difference in any of the patient-reported outcome measures between conventional and navigated surgery. Interestingly, improved implant survivorship was observed in the navigated (0% revision rate) compared with the conventional group (4.9% all-cause revision rate). Conclusion: Electromagnetic computer navigated technology produces similar clinical outcomes compared with traditional surgery. Further work is required to monitor implant survivorship, and clinical outcomes with long-term follow-up, to determine the cost effectiveness of this technology. Crown Copyright (c) 2021 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Automated summary

This study found that there were continued improvements in clinical scores of patients in both conventional and navigated surgery groups at 5 years, with no statistical difference in patient-reported outcome measures. However, improved implant survivorship was observed in the navigated surgery group compared to the conventional group. Further research is needed to evaluate long-term implant survivorship and cost effectiveness of electromagnetic computer navigated technology.