Table 3.
Summary of studies comparing CAS and conventional TKA with long-term follow-up
| Study | Design | Age at surgery | Follow-up | Number of knees | Results | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initially (follow-up) | ||||||
| CAS | Conv. | |||||
| Baier 2017 [16] | Matched pair | 75y | 10y | 157 (75) | 188 (75) | survival: CAS 98.1%, Conv. 92.5% (p=0.04), no difference in KSS and total WOMAC scores (WOMAC stiffness better in conv.) |
| Baumbach 2016 [15] | Retrospective | 74y / 69y | 10y | 113 (50) | 104 (46) | survival: CAS 98%, Conv. 87% (p<0.05), better alignment in CAS, no differences in HSS, KSS and SF-36 scores |
| Cip 2018 [25] | RCT | 67y | 12y | 100 (47/32)* | 100 (54/27)* |
survival: CAS 98.2%, Conv. 91.5% (n.s.), no difference in KSS, HSS and WOMAC scores *analysis of survival / clinical follow-up |
| D’Amato 2018 [26] | RCT | 69y | 10y | 60 (48) | 60 (45) | survival: CAS 96.2%, Conv. 94.3% (n.s.) no differences in leg alignment, KSS and KOOS scores |
| De Steiger 2015 [13] | National registry | n.a. | 9y+ | 44 573 | 270 545 | survival all patients: CAS 95.4%, Conv. 94.8% (n.s.), survival <65y: CAS 93.7%, Conv. 92.2% (p=0.011) |
| Kim 2017 [27] | prospective | 68y | 12y | 176 (162) | 176 (162) | 100% survival in both groups, no difference in KSS and WOMAC scores |
| Lacko 2018 [14] | RCT | 67y | 11y | 30 | 31 | survival: CAS 96.7%, Conv. 87% (p=0.04), alignment significantly better in CAS in a single-surgeon series without prior experience in TKA |
| Quanezar 2016 [28] | Institutional registry | 70y | 10y | 87 (59) | 51 (36) | survival: CAS 94%, Conv. 86% (n.s.),no difference in mechanical axis and KSS score |
| Song 2016 [29] | RCT | 66y | 9y | 45 (41) | 43 (40) | survival: CAS 100%, Conv. 95.3 % (n.s.), CAS had fewer alignment outliers (7.3 vs 20 %, p = 0.006), no difference in HSS, WOMAC, KS function and pain scores |
| Present study | RCT | 66y / 69y | 10y | 40 (21) | 40 (29) | Survival: CAS 92.5%, Conv. 97.5% (n.s.), no differences in KSS and EQ5D |