Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32944412›Full record

ArticleJBJS essential surgical techniques

Computerized Navigation: A Useful Tool in Total Knee Replacement.

Oystein Gothesen, Oystein Skaden, Gro S Dyrhovden, Gunnar Petursson, Ove N Furnes

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JBJS essential surgical techniques. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. JBJS essential surgical techniques
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Oystein GothesenHospital for Rheumatic Diseases, Haugesund, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-8254-9106
Oystein SkadenHospital for Rheumatic Diseases, Haugesund, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-2931-0921
Gro S DyrhovdenDepartment of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-7208-0693
Gunnar PeturssonLovisenberg Diaconal Hospital, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-5698-748X
Ove N FurnesDepartment of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-8223-2515
Haukeland University Hospital · NOPrivatsykehuset Haugesund · NOUniversity of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of computer assistance in a total knee replacement is to achieve optimal alignment, size, and positioning of the implant. The method is safe and accurate and may be particularly useful in cases with abnormal anatomy. DESCRIPTION: The classical computer-assisted system for total knee replacement was developed with real-time surgical navigation using infrared optical tracking arrays. The tracking arrays are attached to the tibial and femoral shafts, as well as to surgical tools, allowing the surgeon to move the tools relative to the knee. The computer-assisted systems allow the surgeon to combine the "measured resection" and "gap balancing" techniques.Step 1: Preoperative planning. Set up the computer and software with the manufacturer implant features and personal preferences.Step 2: Positioning and surgical exposure. Position the patient in order to optimize the camera view.Step 3: Fixation of marker pins. Fix the marker pins to the tibial and femoral shafts.Step 4: Registration of anatomical landmarks and mechanical axes. Move the limb and mark out the anatomical landmarks according to the instructions given by the computer.Step 5: Adaption to the best model. Continue to register the joint surface and anatomy to adapt the fittest pre-registered model to the knee.Step 6: Fine-tuning. The femoral and tibial components are adjusted in size, flexion, extension, rotation, slope, and positioning along the anterior-posterior axis.Step 7: Navigation of cutting blocks and ligament balancing. The cutting blocks are positioned with the assistance of computerized navigation, adjusting for the mechanical axis and ligament tension. The cuts are then performed. Implant trials are inserted, and remaining soft-tissue releases may be performed assisted by the computer. Final implantation is performed. ALTERNATIVES: Conventional knee replacement using intramedullary rods as guidance. RATIONALE: The alignment and positioning of the implant are improved with the use of computer navigation EXPECTED OUTCOMES: Computer-assisted navigation may optimize the precision and accuracy of the surgical procedure. Given the correct target, the outcome of total knee replacement may be more predictable with use of this tool; however, the impact on functional outcomes has not yet been proven to be clinically relevant in clinical trials, and the implant longevity has not been improved IMPORTANT TIPS: Use two 3-mm drill pins for fixation of the optical array to the tibia and femur.If pins are placed within the wound (not through separate stab incisions), plan the positioning relative to the implant to avoid obstruction of the trials.In severely osteoporotic patients, use bicortical fixation and handle the tissues and limb gently to avoid bumping or displacing the optical array as this will negatively alter the registration and reduce navigational accuracy.Make sure the reflective beads on the optical array are clean at all times and remove them (if using clip-on beads) when using the saw to avoid blood splatter.Train an assistant to press the screen buttons in the correct order and in accordance with the surgical progress.

Identifiers

PMID32944412
PMCPMC7478328
OpenAlexW3042971289

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.