Results of computer assisted navigation in Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA): comparison with the conventional method

The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the clinical and radiographic results after TKA (PFC, DePuy), performed either by computer assisted navigation (CAS, Brainlab, Johnson&Johnson) or by conventional means. Material and methods: Between May and December 2006 we reviewed 36 conventional TKA performed between 2002 and 2003 (group A) and 37 navigated TKA performed between 2005 and 2006 (group B) by the same experienced surgeon. The mean age in group A was 74 years (range 62-90) and 73 (range 58-85) in group B with a similar age distribution. The preoperative mechanical axes in group A ranged from -13° varus to +13° valgus (mean absolute deviation 6.83°, SD 3.86), in group B from -13° to +16° (mean absolute deviation 5.35, SD 4.29). Patients with a previous tibial osteotomy or revision arthroplasty were excluded from the study. Examination was done by an experienced orthopedic resident independent of the surgeon. All patients had pre- and postoperative long standing radiographs. The IKSS and the WOMAC were utilized to determine the clinical outcome. Patient's degree of satisfaction was assessed on a visual analogous scale (VAS). Results: 32 of the 37 navigated TKAs (86,5%) showed a postoperative mechanical axis within the limits of 3 degrees of valgus or varus deviation compared to only 24 (66%) of the 36 standard TKAs. This difference was significant (p = 0.045). The mean absolute deviation from neutral axis was 3.00° (range -5° to +9°, SD: 1.75) in group A in comparison to 1.54° (range -5° to +4°, SD: 1.41) in group B with a highly significant difference (p = 0.000). Furthermore, both groups showed a significant postoperative improvement of their mean IKSS-values (group A: 89 preoperative to 169 postoperative, group B 88 to 176) without a significant difference between the two groups. Neither the WOMAC nor the patient's degree of satisfaction - as assessed by VAS - showed significant differences. Operation time was significantly higher in group B (mean 119.9 min.) than in group A (mean 99.6 min., p <0.000). Conclusion: Our study showed consistent significant improvement of postoperative frontal alignment in TKA by computer assisted navigation (CAS) compared to standard methods, even in the hands of a surgeon well experienced in standard TKA implantation. However, the follow-up time of this study was not long enough to judge differences in clinical outcome. Thus, the relevance of computer navigation for clinical outcome and survival of TKA remains to be proved in long term studies to justify the longer operation time. References 1 Stulberg SD. Clin Orth Rel Res. 2003;(416):177-84. 2 Chauhan SK. JBJS Br. 2004;86(3):372-7. 3 Bäthis H, et al. Orthopäde. 2006;35(10):1056-65.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers who have contact with healthcare systems with feedback on the biomedical or potential future effects of smoking, e.g. measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer. We reviewed systematically data on smoking cessation rates from controlled trials that used biomedical risk assessment and feedback. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment provided in addition to various levels of counselling, as a contributing aid to smoking cessation. SEARCH STRATEGY: We systematically searched he Cochrane Collaboration Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966 to 2004), and EMBASE (1980 to 2004). We combined methodological terms with terms related to smoking cessation counselling and biomedical measurements. SELECTION CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria were: a randomized controlled trial design; subjects participating in smoking cessation interventions; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase motivation to quit; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two assessors independently conducted data extraction on each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus. MAIN RESULTS: From 4049 retrieved references, we selected 170 for full text assessment. We retained eight trials for data extraction and analysis. One of the eight used CO alone and CO + Genetic Susceptibility as two different intervention groups, giving rise to three possible comparisons. Three of the trials isolated the effect of exhaled CO on smoking cessation rates resulting in the following odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI): 0.73 (0.38 to 1.39), 0.93 (0.62 to 1.41), and 1.18 (0.84 to 1.64). Combining CO measurement with genetic susceptibility gave an OR of 0.58 (0.29 to 1.19). Exhaled CO measurement and spirometry were used together in three trials, resulting in the following ORs (95% CI): 0.6 (0.25 to 1.46), 2.45 (0.73 to 8.25), and 3.50 (0.88 to 13.92). Spirometry results alone were used in one other trial with an OR of 1.21 (0.60 to 2.42).Two trials used other motivational feedback measures, with an OR of 0.80 (0.39 to 1.65) for genetic susceptibility to lung cancer alone, and 3.15 (1.06 to 9.31) for ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries performed in light smokers (average 10 to 12 cigarettes a day). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the scarcity of evidence of sufficient quality, we can make no definitive statements about the effectiveness of biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation. Current evidence of lower quality does not however support the hypothesis that biomedical risk assessment increases smoking cessation in comparison with standard treatment. Only two studies were similar enough in term of recruitment, setting, and intervention to allow pooling of data and meta-analysis.