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 |