scholarly journals Comparison of Robotic and Conventional Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes in Patients with Osteoarthritis: A Retrospective Cohort Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 220
Author(s):  
Christopher Wu ◽  
Nobuei Fukui ◽  
Yen-Kuang Lin ◽  
Ching-Yu Lee ◽  
Shih-Hsiang Chou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Robotic Arm ◽  
Surgical Time ◽  
Implant Positioning ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee ◽  
One Year ◽  
Anatomical Alignment

Robotic-arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (RUKA) was developed to increase the accuracy of bone alignment and implant positioning. This retrospective study explored whether RUKA has more favorable overall outcomes than conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (CUKA). A total of 158 patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis were recruited, of which 85 had undergone RUKA with the Mako system and 73 had undergone CUKA. The accuracy of component positioning and bone anatomical alignment was compared using preoperative and postoperative radiograph. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using questionnaires, which the patients completed preoperatively and then postoperatively at six months, one year, and two years. In total, 52 patients from the RUKA group and 61 from the CUKA group were eligible for analysis. The preoperative health scores and Kellgren–Lawrence scores were higher in the RUKA group. RUKA exhibited higher implant positioning accuracy, thus providing a superior femoral implant angle, properly aligned implant placement, and a low rate of overhang. RUKA also achieved higher accuracy in bone anatomical alignment (tibial axis angle and anatomical axis angle) than CUKA, but surgical time was longer, and blood loss was greater. No significant differences were observed in the clinical outcomes of the two procedures.

scholarly journals Better Implant Positioning and Clinical Outcomes With a Morphometric Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. Results of a Retrospective, Matched-Controlled Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (12) ◽  
pp. 2903-2908 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Charles Escudier ◽  
Christophe Jacquet ◽  
Xavier Flecher ◽  
Sebastien Parratte ◽  
Matthieu Ollivier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Implant Positioning ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee

scholarly journals Robotic arm-assisted versus conventional medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: five-year clinical outcomes of a randomized controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 103-B (6) ◽  
pp. 1088-1095 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Banger ◽  
James Doonan ◽  
Philip Rowe ◽  
Bryn Jones ◽  
Angus MacLean ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Primary Outcome Measure ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Robotic Arm ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee ◽  
Patient Reported

Aims Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a bone-preserving treatment option for osteoarthritis localized to a single compartment in the knee. The success of the procedure is sensitive to patient selection and alignment errors. Robotic arm-assisted UKA provides technological assistance to intraoperative bony resection accuracy, which is thought to improve ligament balancing. This paper presents the five-year outcomes of a comparison between manual and robotically assisted UKAs. Methods The trial design was a prospective, randomized, parallel, single-centre study comparing surgical alignment in patients undergoing UKA for the treatment of medial compartment osteoarthritis (ISRCTN77119437). Participants underwent surgery using either robotic arm-assisted surgery or conventional manual instrumentation. The primary outcome measure (surgical accuracy) has previously been reported, and, along with secondary outcomes, were collected at one-, two-, and five-year timepoints. Analysis of five-year results and longitudinal analysis for all timepoints was performed to compare the two groups. Results Overall, 104 (80%) patients of the original 130 who received surgery were available at five years (55 robotic, 49 manual). Both procedures reported successful results over all outcomes. At five years, there were no statistical differences between the groups in any of the patient reported or clinical outcomes. There was a lower reintervention rate in the robotic arm-assisted group with 0% requiring further surgery compared with six (9%) of the manual group requiring additional surgical intervention (p < 0.001). Conclusion This study has shown excellent clinical outcomes in both groups with no statistical or clinical differences in the patient-reported outcome measures. The notable difference was the lower reintervention rate at five years for roboticarm-assisted UKA when compared with a manual approach. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6):1088–1095.

scholarly journals Robotic arm-assisted bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty maintains natural knee joint anatomy compared with total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 102-B (11) ◽  
pp. 1511-1518
Author(s):  
Matthew S. Banger ◽  
William D. Johnston ◽  
Nima Razii ◽  
James Doonan ◽  
Philip J. Rowe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Robotic Arm ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee ◽  
Postoperative Changes ◽  
Total Knee

Aims The aim of this study was to compare robotic arm-assisted bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (bi-UKA) with conventional mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in order to determine the changes in the anatomy of the knee and alignment of the lower limb following surgery. Methods An analysis of 38 patients who underwent TKA and 32 who underwent bi-UKA was performed as a secondary study from a prospective, single-centre, randomized controlled trial. CT imaging was used to measure coronal, sagittal, and axial alignment of the knee preoperatively and at three months postoperatively to determine changes in anatomy that had occurred as a result of the surgery. The hip-knee-ankle angle (HKAA) was also measured to identify any differences between the two groups. Results The pre- to postoperative changes in joint anatomy were significantly less in patients undergoing bi-UKA in all three planes in both the femur and tibia, except for femoral sagittal component orientation in which there was no difference. Overall, for the six parameters of alignment (three femoral and three tibial), 47% of bi-UKAs and 24% TKAs had a change of < 2° (p = 0.045). The change in HKAA towards neutral in varus and valgus knees was significantly less in patients undergoing bi-UKA compared with those undergoing TKA (p < 0.001). Alignment was neutral in those undergoing TKA (mean 179.5° (SD 3.2°)) while those undergoing bi-UKA had mild residual varus or valgus alignment (mean 177.8° (SD 3.4°)) (p < 0.001). Conclusion Robotic-assisted, cruciate-sparing bi-UKA maintains the natural anatomy of the knee in the coronal, sagittal, and axial planes better, and may therefore preserve normal joint kinematics, compared with a mechanically aligned TKA. This includes preservation of coronal joint line obliquity. HKAA alignment was corrected towards neutral significantly less in patients undergoing bi-UKA, which may represent restoration of the pre-disease constitutional alignment (p < 0.001). Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(11):1511–1518.

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.

Does component placement affect short-term clinical outcome in robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty?

2019 ◽  
Vol 101-B (4) ◽  
pp. 435-442 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Zambianchi ◽  
G. Franceschi ◽  
E. Rivi ◽  
F. Banchelli ◽  
A. Marcovigi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Robotic Arm ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Soft Tissue Balancing ◽  
Unicompartmental Knee ◽  
Post Implantation

Aims The purpose of this multicentre observational study was to investigate the association between intraoperative component positioning and soft-tissue balancing on short-term clinical outcomes in patients undergoing robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Patients and Methods Between 2013 and 2016, 363 patients (395 knees) underwent robotic-arm assisted UKAs at two centres. Pre- and postoperatively, patients were administered Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Score (KOOS) and Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12). Results were stratified as “good” and “bad” if KOOS/FJS-12 were more than or equal to 80. Intraoperative, post-implantation robotic data relative to CT-based components placement were collected and classified. Postoperative complications were recorded. Results Following exclusions and losses to follow-up, 334 medial robotic-arm assisted UKAs were assessed at a mean follow-up of 30.0 months (8.0 to 54.9). None of the measured parameters were associated with overall KOOS outcome. Correlations were described between specific KOOS subscales and intraoperative, post-implantation robotic data, and between FJS-12 and femoral component sagittal alignment. Three UKAs were revised, resulting in 99.0% survival at two years (95% confidence interval (CI) 97.9 to 100.0). Conclusion Although little correlation was found between intraoperative robotic data and overall clinical outcome, surgeons should consider information regarding 3D component placement and soft-tissue balancing to improve patient satisfaction. Reproducible and precise placement of components has been confirmed as essential for satisfactory clinical outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:435–442.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document