Table 1: Summary of data regarding ABN vs. Conventional Guides for Alignment.

Author & Year

Sample Size

Level of Evidence

Conclusion

Ueyama et al., 2018 [31]

159

III

Decreased outliers with portable navigation vs. conventional in the femoral coronal and sagittal planes 3% vs. 15% and 15% vs. 43% respectively (p <0.01)

Moo et al., 2018 [29]

60

III

No difference in proportion of outliers in the mechanical axis (p = 0.38)

Kawaguchi et al., 2017 [24]

67

III

Coronal femoral angle closer to perpendicular and fewer outliers in the femoral coronal plane only (p < 0.01)

Goh et al., 2018 [26]

114

II

Improved mean mechanical axis (p = 0.018), femoral component alignment (p = 0.050), and tibial component alignment (p = 0.008), fewer mechanical axis outliers (p = 0.034)

Ikawa et al., 2017 [10]

241

I

Significantly fewer patients having alignment >3° from neutral with ABN. Mean deviation from neutral significantly less with ABN.

Gharaibeh et al., 2017 [23]

179

I

No difference in coronal or sagittal plane alignment