This Article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Seon, J.K. Articles by Yoon, T.R. PubMed Articles by Seon, J.K. Articles by Yoon, T.R.

ACCURACY OF NAVIGATION – COMPARISON BETWEEN INFRARED OPTICAL AND ELECROMAGNETIC NAVIGATION

Center for Joint Disease, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Jeonnam, Korea

Correct alignment of the leg and positioning of the implant has shown to be an important factor in the successful long term outcome of total knee arthroplasty and navigation systems enable an accuracy of corrections and alignment within intervals of 1 mm or 1 degree. This study is to test if there is any discrepancy in accuracy which was sometimes observed in clinical trials between Orthopilot (Aesculap, Tuttlingen, German) and AxiEM (Medtronic Navigation, CoalCreek, Colo., USA).

A synthetic bone model (Sawbones, Pacific Laboratories, Vashon, Washington) including pelvis and leg with mobile joint made up of titanium which does not affect the electromagnetic field was constructed. Mechanical axis was checked by ORTHODOC system (Integrated Surgical System, CA, USA) that is a preplanning system for ROBODOC (ISS, CA, USA) assisted total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA). The CT images were scanned with 1.25 mm or less slice interval. The CT images were converted to 3-dimensional (3D) volume-rendered model in ORTHODOC. Two orthopaedic surgeons measured it ten times independently.

For the measurement of mechanical axis using navigation, 4 orthopaedic surgeons (two experts having more than 100 navigation experiences and two residents) registered anatomical landmarks and kinematic center of bone model ten times using Orthopilot as well as AxiEM. After that, one surgeon intentionally registered the wrong anatomical landmarks (10 mm medial and lateral to the center of distal femur, proximal tibial and ankle, and both malleoli) in both navigation system and observed the change of mechanical axis.

True mechanical axis was varus 1.25° using Orthodoc, Orthopilot displayed varus 1.10±0.64° and AxiEM did varus 1.78±0.79°. The difference of mechanical axis between two navigations was not observed (P=0.12) and there were no intra and inter-observer variation in statistical analysis (Correlation=0.934, P=0.00). In the case of erroneous identification of the anatomical landmarks, Orthipilot showed much less variation compared to AxiEM. AxiEM altered the mechanical axis more in palpating center of the distal femur and ankle center and Orthopilot did in palpating the center of ankle.

Both navigation systems provide high accuracy and reproducibility of mechanical axis of lower limb in experimental condition. But both were affected by the wrong identification of the anatomical landmarks. AxiEM had more variations. So surgeon should pay attention to register the precise anatomical landmarks.

Correspondence should be addressed to Mr K Deep, General Secretary CAOS UK, Dept of Orthopaedics, Golden Jubilee National Hospital, Glasgow G81 4HX, Scotland. Email: caosuk{at}gmail.com