Regional Femoral and Tibial Radiolucency in Cemented Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty and the Relationship to Functional Outcomes

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (11) ◽  
pp. 3345-3351 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura J. Kleeblad ◽  
Jelle P. van der List ◽  
Hendrik A. Zuiderbaan ◽  
Andrew D. Pearle
Keyword(s):  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee ◽  
The Relationship

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.

Robot-Assisted versus Conventional Total and Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-analysis of Radiological and Functional Outcomes

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Zhaojie Chin ◽  
Sharon Si Heng Tan ◽  
Kasia Chen Xi Chua ◽  
Gideon Richard Budiono ◽  
Nicholas Li-Xun Syn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
High Quality ◽  
High Quality Evidence ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee ◽  
Conventional Methods ◽  
Quality Evidence

AbstractThe study aims to provide an up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis comparing radiological and functional outcomes of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) using either robotic assistance or conventional methods from the latest assemblage of evidence. This study was conducted according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guidelines. All studies in PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane that reported radiological and functional outcomes after TKA or UKA with either robotic or conventional methods were included in the review. Selected endpoints for random effects, pairwise meta-analysis included operative details, radiological outcomes (mechanical axis, component angle deviation, and outliers), and functional outcomes (American Knee Society Score, Knee Society Function Score, revision and complication rate, range of motion (ROM), Hospital for Special Surgery score, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index). A total of 23 studies comprising 2,765 knees were included from the initial search. Robot-assisted TKA and UKA were associated with significantly better component angle alignment accuracy (low-to-high quality evidence) at the cost of significantly greater operation time. Robot-assisted UKA was found to have significantly better short-term functional outcomes compared with conventional UKA (moderate-to-high quality evidence). Robot-assisted TKA, however, did not exhibit significantly better short- and midterm subjective knee outcome scores compared with its conventional counterpart (high-quality evidence). Robot-assisted TKA and UKA were associated with nonstatistically significant improved ROM and lesser rates of revision. Robot-assisted total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty leads to better radiological outcomes, with no significant differences in mid- and long-term functional outcomes compared with conventional methods for the former. Larger prospective studies with mid- and long-term outcomes are required to further substantiate findings from the present study.

scholarly journals The Relationship between Muscle Weakness and Activation of the Cerebral Cortex Early after Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

2013 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 301-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shin Morita ◽  
Takashi Kusaka ◽  
Shouichi Tanaka ◽  
Eiji Yamada ◽  
Nobuo Arima ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cerebral Cortex ◽  
Muscle Weakness ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee ◽  
The Relationship

scholarly journals MRI Findings at the Bone-Component Interface in Symptomatic Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty and the Relationship to Radiographic Findings

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 286-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Jill Kleeblad ◽  
Hendrik A. Zuiderbaan ◽  
Alissa J. Burge ◽  
Mark J. Amirtharaj ◽  
Hollis G. Potter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Mri Findings ◽  
Radiographic Findings ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee ◽  
Component Interface ◽  
The Relationship

scholarly journals Patient Satisfaction, Functional Outcomes, and Implant Survivorship in Patients Undergoing Customized Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. 753
Author(s):  
Cyrus Anthony Pumilia ◽  
Lennart Schroeder ◽  
Nana O. Sarpong ◽  
Gregory Martin
Keyword(s):  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Phone Call ◽  
Survivorship Analysis ◽  
Computed Tomography Images ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee ◽  
Implant Survivorship ◽  
Patient Reported

Customized unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (C-UKA) utilizes implants manufactured on an individual patient basis, derived from pre-operative computed tomography images in an effort to more closely approximate the natural anatomy of the knee. The outcomes from 349 medial and lateral fixed-bearing C-UKA were reviewed. Implant survivorship analysis was conducted via retrospective chart review, and follow-up analysis was conducted via a single postoperative phone call or email. The rate of follow-up was 69% (242 knees). The average age at surgery was 71.1 years and the average body mass index was 28.8 kg/m2. Seven revision arthroplasties (2.1%) had knowingly been performed at an average of 1.9 years postoperatively (range: 0.1–3.9 years), resulting in an implant survivorship of 97.9% at an average follow-up of 4.2 years (range: 0.1–8.7) and 97.9% at an average of 4.8 years (range: 2.0–8.7) when knees with less than two years of follow-up were excluded. The reasons for revision were implant loosening (one knee), infection (two knees), progression of osteoarthritis (two knees), and unknown reasons (two knees). The average KOOS, JR. interval score was 84 (SD: 14.4). Of those able to be contacted for follow-up analysis, 67% were “very satisfied,” 26% were “satisfied,” 4% were “neutral,” 2% were “dissatisfied,” and 1% were “very dissatisfied.” When asked if the knee felt “natural,” 60% responded with “always,” 35% responded with “sometimes,” and 5% responded with “never.” After analyzing a large cohort of C-UKA, we found favorable rates of survivorship, satisfaction, and patient-reported functional outcomes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document