Improved joint-line restitution in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using a robotic-assisted surgical technique

2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (11) ◽  
pp. 2265-2271 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yannick Herry ◽  
Cécile Batailler ◽  
Timothy Lording ◽  
Elvire Servien ◽  
Philippe Neyret ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Technique ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Joint Line ◽  
Robotic Assisted ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee

scholarly journals Robotic-assisted Unicompartmental knee Arthroplasty optimizes joint line restitution better than conventional surgery

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto Negrín ◽  
Jaime Duboy ◽  
Nicolás O. Reyes ◽  
Maximiliano Barahona ◽  
Magaly Iñiguez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Component ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Tibial Slope ◽  
Conventional Technique ◽  
Joint Line ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Robotic Assisted ◽  
Tibial Resection ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee

Abstract Purpose To compare joint line restoration after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) between conventional and robotic-assisted surgery. Previous studies have shown that joint line distalization can lead to higher failure rates. The hypothesis was that robotic-assisted UKA is associated with less femoral component distalization and a precise tibial cut, which allows a more anatomical restitution of the knee joint line. Methods Retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing medial or lateral UKA between May 2018 and March 2020. Preoperative and postoperative radiologic assessment of the joint line was performed by two observers, using three different methods, one for tibial slope and one for tibial resection. Robotic assisted UKA and conventional UKA groups were compared. Results Sixty UKA were included, of which 48 (77.42%) were medial. Robotic-assisted UKA were 40 (64.52%) and 22(35.48%) were conventional The distalization of the femoral component was higher in the conventional group despite the method of measurement used In both Weber methods, the difference was statistically different: Conventional 2.3 (0.9 to 5.6) v/s Robotic 1.5 (− 1.1 to 4.1) (p =0.0025*). A higher proportion of patients achieved a femoral component position ≤ two millimeters from the joint line using robotic-assisted UKA compared to the conventional technique . No statistical difference between robotic-assisted and conventional UKA was found in tibial resection and slope. Conclusion Robotic-assisted UKA shows a better rate of joint line restoration due to less femoral component distalization than conventional UKA. No difference was found in the amount of tibial resection between groups in this study. Level of evidence III

A systematic review of robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

2019 ◽  
Vol 101-B (7) ◽  
pp. 838-847 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. G. Robinson ◽  
N. D. Clement ◽  
D. Hamilton ◽  
M. J. G. Blyth ◽  
F. S. Haddad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Implant Design ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Robotic Assisted ◽  
Implant Positioning ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee

AimsRobotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) promises accurate implant placement with the potential of improved survival and functional outcomes. The aim of this study was to present the current evidence for robotic-assisted UKA and describe the outcome in terms of implant positioning, range of movement (ROM), function and survival, and the types of robot and implants that are currently used.Materials and MethodsA search of PubMed and Medline was performed in October 2018 in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. Search terms included “robotic”, “knee”, and “surgery”. The criteria for inclusion was any study describing the use of robotic UKA and reporting implant positioning, ROM, function, and survival for clinical, cadaveric, or dry bone studies.ResultsA total of 528 articles were initially identified from the databases and reference lists. Following full text screening, 38 studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria were included. In all, 20 studies reported on implant positioning, 18 on functional outcomes, 16 on survivorship, and six on ROM. The Mako (Stryker, Mahwah, New Jersey) robot was used in 32 studies (84%), the BlueBelt Navio (Blue Belt Technologies, Plymouth, Minnesota) in three (8%), the Sculptor RGA (Stanmore Implants, Borehamwood United Kingdom) in two (5%), and the Acrobot (The Acrobot Co. Ltd., London, United Kingdom) in one study (3%). The most commonly used implant was the Restoris MCK (Stryker). Nine studies (24%) did not report the implant that was used. The pooled survivorship at six years follow-up was 96%. However, when assessing survival according to implant design, survivorship of an inlay (all-polyethylene) tibial implant was 89%, whereas that of an onlay (metal-backed) implant was 97% at six years (odds ratio 3.66, 95% confidence interval 20.7 to 6.46, p < 0.001).ConclusionThere is little description of the choice of implant when reporting robotic-assisted UKA, which is essential when assessing survivorship, in the literature. Implant positioning with robotic-assisted UKA is more accurate and more reproducible than that performed manually and may offer better functional outcomes, but whether this translates into improved implant survival in the mid- to longer-term remains to be seen. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:838–847.

Improved implant position and lower revision rate with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 1232-1240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cécile Batailler ◽  
Nathan White ◽  
Filippo Maria Ranaldi ◽  
Philippe Neyret ◽  
Elvire Servien ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Revision Rate ◽  
Implant Position ◽  
Robotic Assisted ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document